One of the oldest rules of evidence was that your spouse could not be called as a witness against you.
But today the Harper government introduced a bill that would, amongst other things, repeal that limitation:
QuoteVictims bill of rights would see spouses compelled to testify
The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 03, 2014 9:28 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 03, 2014 3:22 PM ET
'Victims should not have to live in fear': Harper 15:02
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today in Mississauga, Ont., the details of a long-promised bill of rights for victims of crime that would force people to testify in court against a spouse.
"Our government believes that victims of crime deserve and should have a right to information, a right to protection, a right to participation, and where possible a right to restitution," said Harper.
Bill C-32, dubbed the Canadian victims bill of rights, was tabled in the House of Commons Thursday morning.
The legislation would change the Canada Evidence Act, which allows spouses to refuse to testify except in certain specific cases such as sexual assaults or crimes against youngsters.
The changes are part of a sweeping government bill that codifies the rights of victims, makes it easier for vulnerable witnesses to testify and requires that victims be given more information about cases.
For instance, victims can request a copy of a bail order, a probation order or the details of a conditional release.
The federal Conservatives have long complained that too much emphasis is placed on the rights of the accused, giving short shrift to the people affected by the crimes.
"Victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect," says the preamble to Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
It says victims have a right to be told when a criminal is deported or paroled and what parole restrictions may apply.
"It is important that victim's rights be considered throughout the criminal justice system," the preamble said.
Victims will also have the right to have the courts consider making a restitution order in all cases and to have such orders registered as a civil court judgment against the offender if the money isn't paid.
A group working to advance the equality of women and girls in Canada, based out of Vancouver, is worried the new bill meant to protect victims of abuse could actually hurt them.
"I would worry for example that forcing women to testify against abusive spouses could not only dissuade them from reporting crime in the first place, but might put them at greater risk throughout that process," said Kasari Govender, the executive director of the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, in an interview with CBC News.
'Invisible damage'
Sheldon Kennedy, a former NHL player who brought to light the sex crimes of former junior hockey coach Graham James, was invited by the government to attend the announcement in Mississauga.
Kennedy said he spent the last 17 years trying to explain to society "the invisible damage" that occurs when a person is a victim of crime.
"Victims deserve fair and equal treatment by the justice system and they need to be assured that the system itself doesn't re-victimize," Kennedy said.
A Calgary centre for abuse victims was renamed the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre last May.
"Not only through my personal experience do I understand the life-changing impacts that being a victim of crime has had on myself and my family, but I've seen it first hand through the 917 cases that were handled in the last 11 months alone at the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre," the former hockey player said.
Harper made the announcement in the company of Justice Minister Peter MacKay, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Conservative MP for Mississauga South Stella Ambler and Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, whose daughter was murdered in 2002.
MacKay said the bill is the result of "an extensive" consultation process, in every province and territory, that began last summer.
"Your voice has been heard. And with this legislation a more compassionate and caring Canada will emerge," MacKay said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/victims-bill-of-rights-would-see-spouses-compelled-to-testify-1.2596307
To me it seems eminently sensible. It was already quite antique in it's use - it only applied to legally married couples, not common law partners. Why should that one relationship, along among all others, be exempted from appearing as a witness?
No one should be compelled to testify. I don't see why wives should be any different.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
No one should be compelled to testify.
:huh: Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
No one should be compelled to testify.
:huh: Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.
I'm aware of that.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
No one should be compelled to testify.
:huh: Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.
And of course it is essential for the prosecution to be able to obtain a fair trial as well.
I can tell you I get calls on an almost weekly basis from a witness whining about how they don't want to come to court. And I get it - it's inconvenient, people have other places to be, you might lose money from work, or whatever. But without those witnesses my case would be thrown out.
Allowing witnesses to decide whether or not to show up also opens the door to witness intimidation.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2014, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 03, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
No one should be compelled to testify.
:huh: Compulsory process is a core 6th Amendment right in the US and very important for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.
I'm aware of that.
You're aware of that...So you're saying you're OK with unfair trials? A bunch of people can place you somewhere else when the crime took place, but they don't feel like getting involved, so nobody makes them show up, and you can't call any witnesses in your defense -- that's an OK outcome?
I thought this was about testifying against the defendant. :unsure:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2014, 03:35:32 PM
I thought this was about testifying against the defendant. :unsure:
Well the rule I was talking about prohibited the prosecution from calling a spouse.
But then you spoke up that nobody should be compelled to testify at all.
I'd roll over on the lot of you. :)
Quote from: katmai on April 03, 2014, 04:59:49 PM
I'd roll over on the lot of you. :)
That's what I admire about you kat. :wub:
Snitches get stiches
Quote from: katmai on April 03, 2014, 04:59:49 PM
I'd roll over on the lot of you. :)
So we'd be flattened? -_-
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2014, 05:21:48 PM
Snitches get stiches
I've never understood the "I'm not going to be a snitch/rat".
26 mins for that joke, I'm disappointed in you Garbo.
I only just got to the thread. :weep:
Beeb: What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014? Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.
Quote from: Camerus on April 03, 2014, 05:31:03 PM
Beeb: What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014? Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.
From wikipedia:
QuoteBoth types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.
Doesn't seem very compelling.
The rationale behind spousal privilege was to preserve domestic harmony, in large part to not force spouses (re: wives) to perjure themselves, which they would be basically forced to do back in the days when women strongly depended upon a husband (and moreover when divorce and remarriage was hard to come by).
But either way you cut it, spousal testimony is bound to be extremely biased and unreliable. Plus a lot of their testimony would be hearsay anyway, whether admissible under an exception or not.
I'm not really opposed to abolishing spousal privilege, but it does serve a societal function--less important than it once was--and forcing spouses to testify doesn't serve any particularly compelling purpose.
I'm with MIM. Testimony is for savages; one day all words and deeds should be recorded, and we'll have a transparent society free of crime and corruption. All we have to do is silence the lunatics who believe privacy is more important than child abuse, murder, bribery, and so forth.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2014, 05:38:33 PM
The rationale behind spousal privilege was to preserve domestic harmony, in large part to not force spouses (re: wives) to perjure themselves, which they would be basically forced to do back in the days when women strongly depended upon a husband (and moreover when divorce and remarriage was hard to come by).
But either way you cut it, spousal testimony is bound to be extremely biased and unreliable. Plus a lot of their testimony would be hearsay anyway, whether admissible under an exception or not.
I'm not really opposed to abolishing spousal privilege, but it does serve a societal function--less important than it once was--and forcing spouses to testify doesn't serve any particularly compelling purpose.
I'm with MIM. Testimony is for savages; one day all words and deeds should be recorded, and we'll have a transparent society free of crime and corruption. All we have to do is silence the lunatics who believe privacy is more important than child abuse, murder, bribery, and so forth.
And Mihali wonders why I seem to have it out for you sometimes.
What do you have to hide? Crimes? OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 03, 2014, 05:31:03 PM
Beeb: What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014? Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.
From wikipedia:
QuoteBoth types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.
Doesn't seem very compelling.
Little wonder a single young gay man would see little societal value in the traditional institution of marriage. :P
I'm no legal expert, and this is more or less off the top of my head, but to me, spousal privilege exists (a) to protect the marriage, since one spouse testifying against another in court would be extremely damaging to any marriage (b) real concerns about whether such testimony would be reliable. Obviously the value one places in marriage as an institution will also determine the extent to which you feel (a) is a valid concern.
So, to what extent do we wish to allow the state further legal rights to intrude upon one's marriage, and now force spouses to testify against one another? Personally, I'd prefer to keep my ancient liberties in tact.
Quote from: Camerus on April 03, 2014, 05:49:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 03, 2014, 05:31:03 PM
Beeb: What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014? Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.
From wikipedia:
QuoteBoth types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.
Doesn't seem very compelling.
Little wonder a single young gay man would see little societal value in the traditional institution of marriage. :P
I'm no legal expert, and this is more or less off the top of my head, but to me, spousal privilege exists (a) to protect the marriage, since one spouse testifying against another in court would be extremely damaging to any marriage (b) real concerns about whether such testimony would be reliable. Obviously the value one places in marriage as an institution will also determine the extent to which you feel (a) is a valid concern.
So, to what extent do we wish to allow the state further legal rights to intrude upon one's marriage, and now force spouses to testify against one another? Personally, I'd prefer to keep my ancient liberties in tact.
And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 03, 2014, 05:49:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Camerus on April 03, 2014, 05:31:03 PM
Beeb: What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014? Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.
From wikipedia:
QuoteBoth types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.
Doesn't seem very compelling.
Little wonder a single young gay man would see little societal value in the traditional institution of marriage. :P
I'm no legal expert, and this is more or less off the top of my head, but to me, spousal privilege exists (a) to protect the marriage, since one spouse testifying against another in court would be extremely damaging to any marriage (b) real concerns about whether such testimony would be reliable. Obviously the value one places in marriage as an institution will also determine the extent to which you feel (a) is a valid concern.
So, to what extent do we wish to allow the state further legal rights to intrude upon one's marriage, and now force spouses to testify against one another? Personally, I'd prefer to keep my ancient liberties in tact.
And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. :rolleyes:
Lighten up, man. It was a joke, not a "shutting down of your opinion." :hug:
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:56:12 PM
And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. :rolleyes:
Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here. Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2014, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:56:12 PM
And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. :rolleyes:
Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here. Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.
They can marry now in some states.
and to the OP.....yes.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 03, 2014, 07:14:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2014, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:56:12 PM
And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. :rolleyes:
Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here. Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.
They can marry now in some states.
I'm talking about "here", as in Languish. :P
Given the lower priority placed on marriage, this move makes sense in the context of modern society.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
What do you have to hide? Crimes? OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.
You'll see the big board.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
What do you have to hide? Crimes? OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.
From a personal point of view, lots of things that people do may be highly embarrassing but not illegal. These things can seriously mess up someone's life. Also, privacy is important in some cases for personal safety or just personal harmony (if I one day have a massive windfall, I don't want anyone to know).
From a societal point of view, whoever is collecting all the information has an extreme amount of power. Everyone has done a collection of things that would not reflect well if they came to light (especially if out of context). It could give the holder of the information a virtual veto over any candidate running for office, which would have a negative effect on democracy.
Young people suck. They are so nosy.
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2014, 05:41:24 PM
And Mihali wonders why I seem to have it out for you sometimes.
Well, I don't mean you're necessarily
wrong to do so, in light of this kind of shit at the very least. :lol: But you do go after him a little hard sometimes, I think that's fair to say.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2014, 08:19:11 PM
Young people suck.
You don't need any more than this.
I'd totally be the snitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Fd34c1f24010eb94cfa245f9b02483844%2Ftumblr_mu0fyuV6Kz1rcufs7o1_250.gif&hash=f80cc079d30c7f17d7ae9183e64831e0ec2f6538)
Well, I need booze to unsee that.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
What do you have to hide? Crimes? OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.
You can go ahead and be the first. Get a webcam, carry it everywhere and let it see everything you are doing, and stream that live on the web. You have nothing to hide, and claim no right to privacy, so live the standard you want to impose on others.
Crowdsource if you need the funding.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2014, 09:02:17 PM
Well, I need booze to unsee that.
You're going soft in your old age. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2014, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2014, 05:56:12 PM
And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. :rolleyes:
Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here. Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.
And don't you forget it. :contract:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
What do you have to hide? Crimes? OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.
Knowledge is power. Hide it well.
The big question is how to defuse the prospect of abuse of authority. The simplest, but seriously flawed, solution would be public access to all collected data (attempting identity theft would be pretty short-sighted in such a society).
The biggest problems with that involve voyeurism. Regarding adults, I understand the objection while still not considering it terribly compelling. However, considering one of the big issues the destruction of privacy would be meant to address would be abuse of children, on reflection I'm finding it difficult to resolve that paradox. Maybe a mixed system of public access to all communications, but cameras accessible only to an NSA-style authority of vetted professionals, or to other relevant authorities, including defense counsel, in the event of criminal or civil action. (As computers and image recognition software get better, it may be possible to cut human vigilance out of the first-level review altogether; and this may be the key innovation that permits the establishment of a fully transparent society.)
As for embarrassing yet not unlawful "secrets"--such as disease status, penchant for adultery, etc.--one's embarrassment is irrelevant; your life and deeds are the concern of others in society, especially when it threatens other citizens' physical or emotional well-being. Society used to recognize this, but in doing away with stupid prejudices (e.g., homophobia) we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Consider public health. Mandatory STD testing and public lists should have been implemented already; HIV could be eradicated in a generation. (And as for weird fetishes, I think the Internet-driven erosion of taboos is probably close to destroying much remaining stigma to such things.)
What else needs to be kept secret? Proprietary manufacturing information? I'd like to see another example of truly harmless things that need to be kept private.
I would be happy living like that, knowing that I am being watched but that all others are being watched as well. Unfortunately, I do suspect there are great many people who would find it psychologically troubling (though oddly they also often have no problem with God watching them take dumps, which is a real dissonance, cognition-wise).
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:22:38 AM
I would be happy living like that, knowing that I am being watched but that all others are being watched as well. Unfortunately, I do suspect there are great many people who would find it psychologically troubling (though oddly they also often have no problem with God watching them take dumps, which is a real dissonance, cognition-wise).
I don't understand why you would be unwilling to adopt what you hope to make the universal standard, merely because it isn't universal. What reason, besides a desire for privacy, would you have for being unwilling to live as you want everyone to live, whether everyone lives that way or not? If privacy is an issue, explain why it is important to you without taking a right to privacy as axiomatic. If privacy isn't an issue, why not set the example and broadcast yourself 24/7?
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2014, 05:55:33 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2014, 06:19:15 AM
If they are obligated to testify, then the spouse can't blame them for testifying.
They can and will.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2014, 06:38:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2014, 06:19:15 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 04, 2014, 09:15:52 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2014, 06:19:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2014, 05:55:33 AM
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).
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2014, 08:14:36 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2014, 06:38:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2014, 06:19:15 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 11:32:55 AM
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. :mellow:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:22:38 AM...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.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 04, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:22:38 AM...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!
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 09:25:39 AM
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.
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.
Leave the traditional rule as it is. Garbon notwithstanding. ;)
The testifying spouse owns the privilege, yes.
Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?
Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2014, 12:08:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2014, 11:32:55 AM
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. :mellow:
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 04, 2014, 01:45:47 PM
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.
Did my mentioning of you wacking it to the ladies at Curves help your thinking Ide?
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
Leave the traditional rule as it is. Garbon notwithstanding. ;)
:unsure:
Quote from: Iormlund on April 04, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:22:38 AM...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.
This is a real problem already. I've been too close to the hiring procedures and HR in my life to not realize they are definitely discriminating against people based on stuff like that. It's also a factor for having things like property information online. Give your address, and they know how much your house is worth, who holds liens, etc. If you get convicted of a crime, the knock-on effect of even a very minor sentence could actually be a sentence to lifetime unemployment and poverty.
Some things really do need to be secret because now that we have the HR disease and the internet telling us everything about everyone, we can't go back to the way things were.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?
It doesn't really matter. How are you going to prove discrimination?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2014, 11:46:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 04, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:22:38 AM...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.
This is a real problem already. I've been too close to the hiring procedures and HR in my life to not realize they are definitely discriminating against people based on stuff like that. It's also a factor for having things like property information online. Give your address, and they know how much your house is worth, who holds liens, etc. If you get convicted of a crime, the knock-on effect of even a very minor sentence could actually be a sentence to lifetime unemployment and poverty.
Some things really do need to be secret because now that we have the HR disease and the internet telling us everything about everyone, we can't go back to the way things were.
Yeah I know. The crime thing is obviously less common here, but given my situation I know quite a few cases of people being fired shortly after their first serious flare up (in fact most are). Disability benefits help there but you need to be really fucked up for it to kick in even to a lesser degree.
Is there an exception to the spouse rule for the power of Christ?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2014, 11:46:33 PM
Some things really do need to be secret because now that we have the HR disease and the internet telling us everything about everyone, we can't go back to the way things were.
What you are describing is called "human nature." I dunno why Ide would be so trusting of his fellow-humans that he would require them to allow other humans to freely spy them (but not on him, except as a price he would pay to allow them to spy freely on one another). Privacy isn't a matter of hiding crimes (well, not for most of us, anyway), it is a matter of feeling free to do and say as we wish, without harming anyone else, while at the same time avoiding the judgement of people who have no idea of the context of our words or actions. If everyone were allowed to spy on everyone (aka "the open society") we would be in a constant state of self-censorship in word and action, lest we say or do something that could be misinterpreted to our detriment.
It's already like that. It's just called "society."
I wonder how long I'd keep myself in my skin if I publicly brought up unionizing my workplace. My bet is, literally, about one hour.
P.S. I'd remain ok with voting records being kept secret.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 04, 2014, 11:58:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?
It doesn't really matter. How are you going to prove discrimination?
The usual means. Though it could be easier when everyone's conversations are recorded.
I'm sort of surprised they would consider Crohn's. I mean, you've got a pretty severe case afaik and you seem perfectly capable of doing your job. :unsure: (Then again, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of HR?)
Quote from: MIMThis is a real problem already. I've been too close to the hiring procedures and HR in my life to not realize they are definitely discriminating against people based on stuff like that. It's also a factor for having things like property information online. Give your address, and they know how much your house is worth, who holds liens, etc. If you get convicted of a crime, the knock-on effect of even a very minor sentence could actually be a sentence to lifetime unemployment and poverty.
Indeed. Most of the truly damaging shit is already public record.
Quote from: IormYeah I know. The crime thing is obviously less common here,
Can you elaborate on this?
Quotebut given my situation I know quite a few cases of people being fired shortly after their first serious flare up (in fact most are).
How would one go about proving a discrimination lawsuit, indeed?
Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.
I shamelessly stole this from another prosecutor:
When defence calls their client's mother to say whatever BS story about how their precious child could never have been the one who did this horrible crime, I ask precisely one question in cross-examination.
Q. Ma'am, you love your son very much, don't you?
Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2014, 10:29:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.
I shamelessly stole this from another prosecutor:
When defence calls their client's mother to say whatever BS story about how their precious child could never have been the one who did this horrible crime, I ask precisely one question in cross-examination.
Q. Ma'am, you love your son very much, don't you?
That's leading the witness!
Quote from: Ideologue on April 05, 2014, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 04, 2014, 11:58:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 04, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Iorm: did I show some kind of intent to make employment discrimination lawful?
It doesn't really matter. How are you going to prove discrimination?
The usual means. Though it could be easier when everyone's conversations are recorded.
All it takes is an automated filter and nobody in HR will ever see those CVs, much less talk about them.
Quote
I'm sort of surprised they would consider Crohn's. I mean, you've got a pretty severe case afaik and you seem perfectly capable of doing your job. :unsure: (Then again, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of HR?)
I am. Statistically, however, I have a 50% chance* of having to go under the knife again. That could imply missing up to 4-5 months of work, not to mention the devastating disruption to any project I was involved in. That could cost quite a bit since it's not easy to find qualified replacements for the kind of job I do at the drop of a hat.
* Those numbers have probably been compiled over a few decades, while the treatment options have increased in the last few years thanks to biologics, so actual chance might be significantly lower these days. Regardless, that's what someone at HR would see.
Quote
Quote from: IormYeah I know. The crime thing is obviously less common here,
Can you elaborate on this?
We don't have such a big offender population.
But also, in Spain criminal records are not public. The only way to legally obtain someone else's record is to have said person sign a form before a notary public. Moreover, entries are purged after some time dependent on the type of crime.
In addition you can only be required to provide said records for certain openings, mostly dealing with banks, security or regulated professions (law, medicine, ...).
Quote
Quotebut given my situation I know quite a few cases of people being fired shortly after their first serious flare up (in fact most are).
How would one go about proving a discrimination lawsuit, indeed?
Our legislation (and precedents including SC) says you can fire someone for being sick if it negatively impacts his or her job. Depending on situation it could count as with or without cause. Chronic cases are admittedly a murky area.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2014, 06:08:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2014, 10:29:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Do we have laws to prevent mothers from being compelled to testify against their children? Seems like that might be a bigger case for unreliable testimony than a spouse.
I shamelessly stole this from another prosecutor:
When defence calls their client's mother to say whatever BS story about how their precious child could never have been the one who did this horrible crime, I ask precisely one question in cross-examination.
Q. Ma'am, you love your son very much, don't you?
That's leading the witness!
Leading questions are permitted on cross.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 06, 2014, 07:07:56 AM
Our legislation (and precedents including SC) says you can fire someone for being sick if it negatively impacts his or her job. Depending on situation it could count as with or without cause. Chronic cases are admittedly a murky area.
Basically the same here. Firing someone for being sick or having a particular illness isn't good cause (and may be illegal discrimination if the illness in question is considered a disability), but firing someone because they can't show up and do their job is considered good cause.
More importantly, should someone here testify in the trial of a fellow Languishite ? :unsure: