Should your spouse be compelled to testify against you in court?

[PDH]

All along I thought Ideologue was a neo-Marxist crusader for economic justice.
Now I find out he is just the world's most intrusive and obnoxious helicopter mommy, writ large.

  Can't he be both?

[Ed Anger]

I imagine Ide in a Mao jacket watching a bank of video monitors, half of which aren't working. Because we know commies suck at maintenance.

He's likely jacking it to the people's camera number 69, women's locker room at Curves.

[Barrister]

If the spouse wanted to be honest about their testimony, they would do it without being forced to, so I don't see the point.

They might want to be honest about it, and also want to avoid testifying against someone with whom they will have to live, afterwards.  This isn't a black-and-white issue.

If they are obligated to testify, then the spouse can't blame them for testifying.  As it stands right now, a spouse only testifies if he or she wants to hurt their partner.  Justice is better served if testimony comes without externalities.

The rule in the US might be different.  In Canada a spouse can not give evidence for the prosecution.  The spouse isn't merely not a compellable witness, but is not a competent witness.  There are, however, a host of exceptions to that rule (offences involving children, sexual assaults, offences where the spouse is the victim).

[Eddie Teach]

If they are obligated to testify, then the spouse can't blame them for testifying.

They can and will.

As much as they blame other witnesses for involuntarily testifying, yes.  Which is to day, not much.

If you really loved her, you would have perjured yourself.

[crazy canuck]

BB, take a look at section 14 of the Act which provides that Victims have a "right" to both convey their views and have those views considered by the "appropriate authority" before decisions within the Criminal Justice System are made. Note that this is separate from the ability of victims to give impact statements.  This could be interpreted as a broad right of consultation with victims at every step of the process from the decision to charge through to the end of the trial and sentencing.   Section 20 provides some limits to that right such that it should not interfere with the discretion of certain actors or cause "excessive delay" but that implies that victims should still be consulted regarding decisions where the Crown has traditionally asserted privilege from disclosure.

If this is passed as is I think this will be a good example of good intentions leading to harmful unintended consequences.  As just one example I think it likely that victims who believe their views were not appropriately considered or who feel they were not given an appropriate opportunity to express those views could commence Judicial Review proceedings to enforce their new statutory rights.  This will, notwithstanding s.20, inevitably lead to delays which in turn will lead to stays because it has taken too long for a matter to proceed to trial.

One can imagine a number of other areas where this right to convey views and have them considered can cause additional delays bringing matters to trial.  It is hard enough to stay within Constitutional limits already.  In the name of giving rights to victims this may well lead to victims becoming enraged by the increasing delays and and increasing number of cases being thrown out because of those delays.

Put this in the be careful what you wish for file.

[Barrister]

BB, take a look at section 14 of the Act which provides that Victims have a "right" to both convey their views and have those views considered by the "appropriate authority" before decisions within the Criminal Justice System are made. Note that this is separate from the ability of victims to give impact statements.  This could be interpreted as a broad right of consultation with victims at every step of the process from the decision to charge through to the end of the trial and sentencing.   Section 20 provides some limits to that right such that it should not interfere with the discretion of certain actors or cause "excessive delay" but that implies that victims should still be consulted regarding decisions where the Crown has traditionally asserted privilege from disclosure.

If this is passed as is I think this will be a good example of good intentions leading to harmful unintended consequences.  As just one example I think it likely that victims who believe their views were not appropriately considered or who feel they were not given an appropriate opportunity to express those views could commence Judicial Review proceedings to enforce their new statutory rights.  This will, notwithstanding s.20, inevitably lead to delays which in turn will lead to stays because it has taken too long for a matter to proceed to trial.

One can imagine a number of other areas where this right to convey views and have them considered can cause additional delays bringing matters to trial.  It is hard enough to stay within Constitutional limits already.  In the name of giving rights to victims this may well lead to victims becoming enraged by the increasing delays and and increasing number of cases being thrown out because of those delays.

Put this in the be careful what you wish for file.

Meh - I have always considered it important to consult with victims at every step, and do so in my own practice.

[Iormlund]

...disease status,...

If anyone could access health records, I would need to turn to crime in order to feed myself and have a roof over my head. Nobody is going to employ someone with a chronic disease when a simple query can filter them out. It would also discourage people from using DNA analysis to find potential risks.

[garbon]

...disease status,...

If anyone could access health records, I would need to turn to crime in order to feed myself and have a roof over my head. Nobody is going to employ someone with a chronic disease when a simple query can filter them out. It would also discourage people from using DNA analysis to find potential risks.

Gattaca!

[Capetan Mihali]

Ide, I think you need to think through your position a little bit more.  Then come back and present it, and we can give meaningful criticism.  As it stands, we'd crash the server trying to explain everything that's wrong with it, and I don't want to put VonMoltke through that.

[grumbler]

The rule in the US might be different.  In Canada a spouse can not give evidence for the prosecution.  The spouse isn't merely not a compellable witness, but is not a competent witness.  There are, however, a host of exceptions to that rule (offences involving children, sexual assaults, offences where the spouse is the victim).

Put that way, I don't know if the US is any different.  I thought it was that they couldn't be compelled, but it may be that they can't testify at all.

[Capetan Mihali]

Without looking at the evidence rules, I have a strong recollection that, in the US, spouses can testify against one another if they wish to, but can't be compelled.  I believe it is a privilege that the party called to testify is allowed to waive.

[Malthus]

Leave the traditional rule as it is. Garbon notwithstanding. 

[Ideologue]

The testifying spouse owns the privilege, yes.

Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?

[crazy canuck]

BB, take a look at section 14 of the Act which provides that Victims have a "right" to both convey their views and have those views considered by the "appropriate authority" before decisions within the Criminal Justice System are made. Note that this is separate from the ability of victims to give impact statements.  This could be interpreted as a broad right of consultation with victims at every step of the process from the decision to charge through to the end of the trial and sentencing.   Section 20 provides some limits to that right such that it should not interfere with the discretion of certain actors or cause "excessive delay" but that implies that victims should still be consulted regarding decisions where the Crown has traditionally asserted privilege from disclosure.

If this is passed as is I think this will be a good example of good intentions leading to harmful unintended consequences.  As just one example I think it likely that victims who believe their views were not appropriately considered or who feel they were not given an appropriate opportunity to express those views could commence Judicial Review proceedings to enforce their new statutory rights.  This will, notwithstanding s.20, inevitably lead to delays which in turn will lead to stays because it has taken too long for a matter to proceed to trial.

One can imagine a number of other areas where this right to convey views and have them considered can cause additional delays bringing matters to trial.  It is hard enough to stay within Constitutional limits already.  In the name of giving rights to victims this may well lead to victims becoming enraged by the increasing delays and and increasing number of cases being thrown out because of those delays.

Put this in the be careful what you wish for file.

Meh - I have always considered it important to consult with victims at every step, and do so in my own practice.

Ok, but that is only one part of the new legislative requirement.  Not only you, but the police and the court have to consult with and consider the input of victims in every decision made.  I am curious as to whether this will mean that charges which would otherwise not laid will not be pursued (adding in part to further delays in the system as a whole) and to what extent charging decisions the victim is unhappy with will be judicially reviewed.

[Ideologue]

Ide, I think you need to think through your position a little bit more.  Then come back and present it, and we can give meaningful criticism.  As it stands, we'd crash the server trying to explain everything that's wrong with it, and I don't want to put VonMoltke through that.

No need.  Grumbler's withering exposure of my own depthless hypocrisy has convinced me of the error of my ways.  It's just like when derspeiss and dps noted that I lacked strength of conviction by failing to voluntarily raise my own marginal tax rate and send unsolicited checks to the U.S. government.

Anyway, I understand that universal surveillance isn't very popular, despite its advantages, due in one part to the deep-seated American belief that the government should be susceptible to overthrow in the event of tyranny (even Democrats have a streak of that), to another that we all commit petty crimes (speeding, improper parking, cocaine use, etc.), and finally to an inborn dislike of spying, thanks to the instinctive, atomistic reasoning that being watched by an unseen and powerful potential adversary is bad.  The last is the most difficult to overcome.

I also understand there are potential abuses--which can be limited by appropriate checks and balances; for an obvious example, defense attorneys.  (Though there would be need for far fewer criminal defense services.)  We already trust the government with tanks, aircraft, dreadnoughts, and nuclear weapons; the machinery for unbearable repression already exists and that seems to have turned out reasonably okay.  As a de facto if not de jure matter, we trust the government to invade our privacy to a huge extent already.  My notions at least keep domestic spying in the light, where the watchmen can be watched.  Yours push it into the shadows.