Don't Talk to the Police - EVER!

[Solomwi]

That was supposed to be a joke



I have no problem with your explanation, it quite clear and explains the habit of american procedure. I simply find it strange. I have a colleague that is a jury member (our jury system is a bit different than yours) that I will ask about danish treatment of such.



Well, I have to stoop to that too sometimes, but it's rarely nessecary

@snoopy369 : I'm quite aware of the fact that Solomwi is right, I just find it strange and I'm not sure it would be allowed in a danish court.

Fair enough. Given that this all started with you being baffled at a fairly mundane aspect of our court system, I hope I can be forgiven for not recognizing the joke.

I'm interested, though, in the opposite question, if it turns out that Danish courts handle the same thing differently. I'm interested to see what you find out. As long as you're clear enough now to understand why, even if not agreeing with it, my work is done.

[germanos]

Excellent video's

I did like the bit where the cop says that in countries like Italy, Spain, etc they beat the crap out of the accused. I guess the US has a few things going for it...

[cough] Rodney King [/cough]

[chequita guevara]

I did like the bit where the cop says that in countries like Italy, Spain, etc they beat the crap out of the accused. I guess the US has a few things going for it...

Meet Chicago Area Two Commander, John Burge

[BlackCat]

I'm interested, though, in the opposite question, if it turns out that Danish courts handle the same thing differently. I'm interested to see what you find out. As long as you're clear enough now to understand why, even if not agreeing with it, my work is done.

Sorry it took some time, but didn't have the opportunity to talk to him before today.

I was right, there are no distinction between positive and negative statements given in a police interview in a danish court. Everything given in a such is admissible as long as it is relevant for the case.

He was actually just as baffled as I was, and it took a bit of an effort to explain/convince him "the american way".

Besides that, he mentioned two other cases where us and danish law differs.

In a us case it's possible to bring character evidence - that isn't possible in denmark, neither for defense nor prosecutor. Though, in a couple of terror cases it has been allowed for the prosecutor to bring such, but this slippery slope has been the cause of heated debate - don't know if the jury in the end was instructed to ignore these witnesses.

If understood correctly, then us law is heavily based upon precedence - that is not the case in dansih law. If it isn't forbidden in a law, then it's allowed.

[Solomwi]

Thanks for finding out (and pointing me to your response).

He's right about reliance on precedent, though that was a distinction I already assumed. Generally, Britain and its colonial progeny have common law systems, while continental nations and their colonial progeny have civil law systems, the biggest difference between the two being reliance on precedent. Precedent basically sets the rules for deciding a case. In criminal law, precedent itself won't create new crimes just because a judge once decided some behavior should be illegal. That's the province of the legislatures. Precedent will tell the court how to interpret the statute, though.

The character evidence issue is a bit more complicated. It's not always admissible, and the admissibility rules actually tilt in favor of a criminal defendant. In civil cases, it's usually not admissible unless someone's character is an actual issue in the case, such as if I called you a lying son of a ***** and you sued me for defamation. Since the falsehood of the statement is an element of defamation, your honesty would be an issue and you'd have to present evidence that you're honest to win. Naturally, I'd be allowed to present evidence that you are, in fact, a lying son of a *****.