Random

[firefly124]

I was amused to see Ethan of Athos listed as an example of literary mpreg in a post I found via metafandom. The Left Hand of Darkness (which also made the list) was the closest I could have come to naming one, and even then, it's not really the same thing when the species in question is ambisexual, though it is hard to argue with the sentence, "The king was

Comments

[shiv5468]

The new full caution is The modern form of caution is:
'You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence, if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.'

Research (Shepherd, Mortimer and Mobasheri (1995)) established that, on a statistically generous assumption, the entire caution, when read through once is understood by only 14% of the general population. Since suspects tend to be less well educated, the proportion of suspects understanding it will be rather less.

If most people do not understand the caution. What does it mean, then? I prefer to explain it backwards.

1. What you say in this interview will be used in court.
2. If you are charged and plead not guilty, then the court can ask whether anything you say in court could have been said now. If you mention something new in court, the court may be reluctant to believe it.
3. You do not have to say anything. The prosecution must provide all the elements of it's case itself, and you have no obligation to take part to help them.

You can continue to say nothing, but if you don't mention early on the facts which form your defence, this will be mentioned in court and an adverse inferene can be drawn from it viz that you made it up after the event.

I also think that all of the contents of a statement would be admissible in a court, whether exculpatory or not, which is different to the US per that video. Because I don't even think of the defendant's evidence as hearsay. It's not. It's not recounting what someone else said, it's saying where he was / what he did... so I'm a bit surprised by that comment.

And, of course, all our interviews are taped, so that there is no issue about misrecalling conversations / evidence.

[saracen77]

I was wondering about that tape thing. I would have presumed that for the purposes of court, a transcript would have been taken of the interviews, but if I, as the defendant, stood up and said, thats rubbish, I didn't say that, I would expect them to be able to produce the tape to prove it. Especially as one word can completely change the sense of a statement, and all you need is a secretary with a hangover...(no offense to secretary's, legal transcribers, whoever would do that.)

Right. I think I understand that caution a bit better. I still don't know what I would do though. Listening to that cop on the vid, you should only speak if it is 100% accurate, and only about hard provable facts, not about stuff like feelings or thoughts. Say "I was there at 9pm" if you know it for definite, but not that "I felt angry", or "everyone knew I didn't like him."

Is that the basic idea?

[shiv5468]

He's an American cop dealing with the American system. I wouldn't take anything he said as relevant.

The basic point is that you say nothing until you have a lawyer, and you don't lie. The lawyer will be able to tell you whether you should say anything at all. If you have an alibi, he's likely to suggest that you mention that as soon as possible.