LawProfessor.com

The Bush Administration has done some very controversial things these past several years, and not the least of these is the introduction of the Patriot Act.  The Act, officially known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, was passed 45 days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and other planned terrorist attacks throughout the United States.  The point of the Act was to make it easier for the U.S. government to search through individual medical and financial files, emails and other communications for the purpose of exposing further terrorist plots.  Understandably, this has triggered a loud voice of protest from Americans who feel their rights of privacy are being sacrificed.

Notably, the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement agencies in America to search files and dwellings of people within the country without the same documentation as is needed in other cases, so long as the crime or plot in question is linked with terrorist activity.  Whereas a person suspected of theft or any other kind of crime is protected under the criminal law system to the extent that there must be sufficient cause to go in and make an arrest or to search the house, the Patriot Act means that anyone accused of terrorism might be arrested and searched at a moment’s notice without such evidence. 

The Patriot Act therefore has changed the entirety of the criminal law system in the United States because now law enforcement agents and the entire population of the country must understand that terrorism stands alone from all other crimes and it will be treated differently.  This is clearly in contrast to the established criminal law system that takes the rights of a suspect into consideration along with the rights of other citizens to be protected from a criminal.  Although we have all been brought up to believe that our justice system maintains that we are ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the Patriot Act flies right in the face of this basic right and it is because of this that many people are concerned that the criminal law system is changing in a negative way. 

Once this fundamental aspect of the American justice system is called into question, the government is given more and more control in a nation that prides itself on preserving personal freedoms.  The Patriot Act is essentially viewed as the beginning of a major change in the focus of the criminal justice system where the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the safety of the entire country.  Since 2001, the Act has been responsible for what many citizens refer to as spying, all in the name of national security.  Where the criminal law system will go next is yet to be determined because as the government pulls for more insight into the habits of its residents, the people are also wanting to preserve their own rights to privacy. 

Sometimes it is the hardest thing in the world to come face to face with a cop and be nice.  They are in a position of authority, they only talk to you when you are getting fined or punished in some way, and what’s more you know you could have done that same job but you wanted not to be a professional bully when you grew up.  At least that’s how it feels when you are facing a ticket and a stern, immobile face.  Citizen and cop relations have always been tense, but there are a few things you can keep in mind when dealing with police officers so that you don’t fly off the handle and get yourself into far more trouble than you were originally in.

You get what you give

Always remember that the first rule of making friends is to smile – even if it’s the last thing you want to do, just a friendly little upturning of the lips can unblock the first wall on the way to a tension-free existence between the cops and your own kind.  It’s not as if you have to do it in the face of a ticket, but if you can first just manage a little smile when you see an officer walking past, dully checking the parking meters or doing other odd jobs that don’t involve you then you are closer to being in good standing with these authority figures.

Try not to blame them for every little thing

Sometimes in life, you will get a ticket.  Or have your jacket searched, or see your friend patted down with no just cause.  These things always happen and everyone will go through it at some point.  The key is not to blame all of these occurrences on the police themselves, since of course they took the job based on the fact that they would follow orders and not do any interpretive thinking on any subject covered under local law.  Let the small things go and if you aren’t able to act happy in the face of such irritations then at least don’t act angry.

Think about being a cop yourself

For a few minutes, imagine if it was you who dreamt of holstering that gun, putting on that hat or chasing down horrible criminals.  This might not be you at all, but if you think about being in this position for a little while you can start to see all the things that might worry such a person, and that cops are facing an incredible amount of danger every day.  Your sympathy could win over your natural hatred!

Know the law

Any altercations with the law might run a lot more smoothly if you knew your rights and responsibilities within the American law system.  To know what is expected of you in different legal circumstances is to know where you and the police stand and what you owe them and what you do not.  This means that you have done your best to earn the respect of those that stand in authority over you; a job not easily done.

When all else fails, think of them as robots

Let’s face it, cops are here to follow the letter of the law and most of the time that means there is no arguing with them: no amount of your own logic will penetrate that seemingly thick skull and therefore it is best not to waste your time.  It’s easier to stay calm around a stubborn robot than it is a stubborn person because you know the robot doesn’t have the capacity to think past its current settings.  If it helps, don’t think of the police as people and you won’t feel such a strong disliking for them!

There seems to be an unwritten law that says the more you pay for your legal representation, the better a service you will receive.  Unfortunately, this logic flies in the face of the fairness of the American justice system that vows equal and unbiased representation to all citizens who find themselves caught up in legal cases.  If you do have the money to file a claim or a suit against another person or company, it can be difficult to look past the flashy and high priced law firms for representation that seems both trustworthy and worth every penny in the end.  Is this really the case though?

There are also a lot of low-budget law firms out there – you can see their ads plastered on magazines, park benches, television and the radio, often with people shouting at you to call their claims firm and cash in on whatever tragedy you may have suffered through.  Most of these are specialty services and very often you really do get what you pay for with them…if you want to cut legal costs but don’t want to compromise on the quality of the service, you should be looking into small, locally-based law firms that may only house one or two qualified lawyers. 

Local lawyers are more likely to be dedicated to other local residents because they care about their community and of course are concerned with building a good name for themselves in the town or region.  Local lawyers will provide a cheaper service without generally cutting on the quality of the actual advice or representation – they will know their way around legal forms and documents and can advise you on the best course of action whatever your situation. 

 In the case of expensive lawyers, however, you should always be getting quality service but the question really is, will that high-priced service be any better or different than if you hire a local lawyer?  Generally speaking, the answer is no.  Both of these choices will be fully trained and able to meet your legal needs.  The only thing you should look out for is a lack of specific legal knowledge on your own situation – ask a few questions of your potential legal representative regarding their experience with cases like yours, and if you get the distinct impression that they are not familiar enough with your circumstances then you should move on to another firm or independent practitioner. 

In terms of expense, it is untrue to make the general statement that the more money you spend, the better representation you will receive.  What you need to be looking for is a lawyer you trust, who is experienced in your type of situation and who does not want to bankrupt you for the pleasure of their service.  It is quite possible to find the sort of legal help you need without spending your life savings – just be patient and don’t hire anyone to represent you until you’re sure they are the right one.

In America today, the most common drug arrests come from the possession or sale of marijuana.  This is a drug with very widespread use and many people believe that its effects are not harmful in the long term.  Although drug users have effectively created several subcultures pertaining to their use or even in some cases to their addictions, it is interesting to know which drugs in particular are getting people caught out and actually arrested for their involvement, be it possession or sale of illegal narcotics.  Interestingly, although it is a completely different kind of drug to marijuana which is clearly the most used and sold in America, heroin is the second most likely drug to get you arrested.

Heroin actually ranks right up there with cocaine after marijuana use in the United States, and these two drugs are generally understood to be more addictive and potentially harmful to users than marijuana or most natural drugs.  Both are processed from naturally occurring elements however the production method leaves the substances extremely potent and dangerous.  Production workers who spend their lives processing cocaine from the coca leaves found in South America have to keep masks over their noses and mouths to prevent too much of the cocaine from being absorbed by their bodies.  Without the masks, enough drugs would be inhaled to kill them in a very short period of time.

Heroin is used differently than cocaine; where the latter is inhaled in powder form through the nose, heroin is cooked into a liquid, put into a needle and injected straight into the bloodstream.  This is a highly addictive drug and the sale of it is slightly more likely to get you arrested than the use.  Upon arrest for the use of heroin, you will be sentenced to some kind of treatment for the addiction (assuming you are addicted, and most people do plead as such if only to lessen the sentencing) and a short jail sentence or community service for any adjacent crimes committed while high or for the purpose of obtaining drugs. 

Following these three narcotics, the next most likely drugs to get you arrested, either for possession or sale, are the synthetic types.  This includes ecstasy, ketamine, crack-cocaine and several others which are processed and essentially manmade.  While the use of these drugs is also quite widespread, people are generally much less likely to walk around with large amounts on them or to keep a ‘stash’ at home; with marijuana users will often keep a bag with them or at home and therefore it is easier for police who decide to search to find what they are looking for.  Granted, synthetic drugs are not in use quite to the extent that marijuana is – after all they are often used in conjunction with a major party or event – however the use of them is more dangerous. 

Needless to say, if you smoke pot in America you are much more likely to wind up in handcuffs than if you use any other drug – a strange fact because it is perhaps the least likely to do any real damage to your health. 

Most of us haven’t had the distinct pleasure of being in a courtroom, either defending ourselves or trying to establish justice after someone has wronged us in some way.  Because of this, our experience often falls to those few moments when we were swept away watching Judge Judy or some other TV reality court show.  The people seem angry and unwilling to compromise, and sometimes the judge can come off entirely unsympathetic and this can be very frightening if you are facing a court date for any reason.  These five tips can help you calm down and get into the right frame of mind for facing court so that you don’t wind up passed out on the floor:

Research your legal situation

If you know the ins and outs of your legal position, you will be infinitely better prepared for your appearance in court.  If you simply show up, answer some questions and cross your fingers, it is far less likely that you will leave with the outcome you desire or that you deserve.  Do some groundwork: pick up any pamphlets that you find in the legal buildings and consult your library for any literature that may be useful on the day.  You should be figuring out the real legal obligations of you or the other parties involved in the case so that you understand what you may or may not have done wrong, and vice versa.

Organize your research

When you have gathered all the relevant information for your case, you should start to analyze it according to the points you feel need to be made to the judge.  For any information you have on the case, such as your whereabouts on a particular day or how well you and a defendant know each other, you should figure out on what grounds the judge will be interested in knowing such information to avoid him or her dismissing it.  Know what the judge wants to know and organize your facts accordingly.

Decide whether or not to include witnesses in your case

Whether you are working with legal representation or not, you will need to think about bringing witnesses in to substantiate your claims or defense.  You need to decide whether this is actually necessary or if it is a waste of the court’s time.  Don’t use witnesses unless they are crucial to the case.

Gather all documentation needed for your court appearance

The worst thing you can do is be unprepared when you come into the courtroom, so figure out what it is you need to present to the judge to back up your story and your claim and be SURE to bring it with  you!

Think about what you are going to say in court

The judge will ask you if you have anything relevant to say before the hearing begins, and you may also be making your closing statement yourself so it is essential that you put some thought into what you will say.  Use your research and be clear, concise and to the point when you address the court. 

The US criminal law system was created the best intentions at heart: to protect the innocent and to punish those that were guilty of committing crimes.  The point was to keep the country running smoothly and for the court system to remain unprejudiced towards any accused or other parties entered into the system.  Today, however, it seems apt to ask whether monetary standing of any one person or corporation actually makes a difference in the American criminal law system. 

Why ask the question?  Too often it looks as if criminals are getting off the hook for crimes they have committed, be it murder or assault, rape or money laundering, because they have the cash to hire on great lawyers or their businesses have such a high standing in the community or the country on the whole.  Although for most of us in small claims court, hiring a high priced lawyer should really make no difference whatsoever in the outcome of the case so long as we have done our homework on the attorney and trust him or her to take the case, larger crimes are often different. 

If you are being taken to court over something like business tax evasion, and your company is quite large and takes in a lot of money each year, then you will probably need to think more carefully about how you proceed with the case.  This is not to say that a small-time lawyer would not be efficient and clearly apt to the situation, but depending on your plea and your stance on the case, a big-time lawyer may well suit you better.  Consider a businessman with everything to lose who has actually done wrong with his taxes and is now facing a court date.  If he wants to keep his business running exactly as it was, and to plead innocent in the accusation then there is clearly a certain pool of lawyer that he should be choosing from; namely, those not against evading certain questions to get their clients off the hook. 

Normally speaking, the lower-paid attorneys and certainly those provided by the court if you have no recourse to representation will be concerned with clear evidence and not with the insidious requests of their clients.  If you want to sidestep justice, you seem to have to pay dearly for it – in this respect, money matters in the US criminal law system because it pays for the lawyers willing to do anything to win, whether or not that means justice has been served. 

Although the criminal law system maintains that money has no influence over the proceedings of a court case, like all things there are ways out of the right way and if you have the money to pay, you are better off.  This may also be the case if your business can pull strings with the judge or jury, however neither of them would ever admit to as much and technically the criminal law system forbids anyone with an interest in the case to preside.  Nevertheless, these things do happen.  

Currently it is illegal for anyone in America to produce, sell or possess cannabis except for a small handful of people working in conjunction with State legislation for medicinal marijuana use.  Other than these select few who have access to the drug to ease the pain of serious diseases, the drug is used as purely recreational and it is viewed as a dangerous and highly addictive substance by the American government.  The U.S. criminal justice system is often dealing with cases of pot users and traffickers and thus much money is spent on tracking such people down, prosecuting them and placing them in prison.  With proposed decriminalization of the drug, however, the system would have to change and take on a more tolerant attitude towards people who use the drug personally.  While trafficking and production of cannabis is still considered intolerable, a growing percentage of the population believes that personal use of marijuana is not a punishable offense.

Decriminalization would focus on those people who use pot for their own personal use, but who do not make sales to others or actually grow the drugs themselves.  The key to determining the difference between a trafficker and someone who has drugs on them for personal use is in the amount found; traffickers deal in large amounts of cannabis and therefore will have a very large stash at home or in their vehicle for sale.  Personal users will only carry a small amount at any time, much like a smoker will carry one package of cigarettes and not an entire carton.  What this means for the U.S. criminal justice system is that changes will need to be made so that drug possession is counted as a ticketable offense and not a criminal one.

When you aren’t wearing a seatbelt, this is normally a ticketable offense; the same goes for speeding and if marijuana possession was decriminalized the same would go for it.  Instead of facing a court date and criminal charges that will stay on your record, if you were found with a small amount of marijuana on you or in your home you would simply be written a ticket, have it confiscated and be required to pay a fine.  This is strictly different from the current criminal justice system in place regarding marijuana possession that could see you in jail for several years for holding even a small amount of the drug. 

There are many Americans who feel that the current drugs laws surrounding cannabis are unfair since the drug is in widespread use, it is not one of the most addictive drugs found on the streets and its negative effects are so few.  Other countries have decriminalized this particular drug because it is obvious that people will never stop using it despite legislation and that it is not as harmful as many of us have been brought up to believe.  The division between ticketable drug charges and criminal drug charges will be the major issue facing law enforcement if marijuana was to be decriminalized in the United States.

In Canada, the federal government holds the primary responsibility for enacting criminal law and although the provincial governments are given some degree of control over maintaining justice in the case of lesser crimes, it is the federal government that oversees the major legislation and documentation pertaining to these acts.  The Criminal Code of Canada sets out the proper procedures for prosecuting a criminal who has committed an offense as set out in the Criminal Code or in any adjacent documents containing crimes; persons under the age of 12 cannot be prosecuted and therefore responsibility for crimes may fall to guardians.  The Youth Criminal Justice Act maintains that those under 12 cannot be charged with committing an offense but that anyone older than 12 and younger than 18 will be under specific prosecution guidelines.

Crimes are classified as either Summary Conviction Offenses, Indictable Offenses or Hybrid Offenses; in the latter case a representative of the Crown must step forward and specifically select which offense will be used to prosecute the offender.  The main difference between Canadian and American criminal law systems is that the former will often appeal to a Crown representative; one who is technically apart from the federal government in their affiliation with the British Crown.  In some cases, the Crown can become a last-ditch effort by a person or party to achieve what they set out to do in court.  This is adequately expressed by the Canada’s groundbreaking Person’s Case, whereby 5 women took their case from Canadian federal courts to the Crown itself and were finally awarded the right to vote and be officially known, along with men, as people.

The American criminal law system is centered primarily on the federal government and with no recourse to a Crown representative it falls to the State governments to enact their own grand jury laws.  Since the Supreme Court holds that State cases do not necessary have the right to demand a grand jury trial, it becomes the responsibility of State officials to determine whether such a trial is necessary or not.  Crimes that are universally accepted, most notably murder, are charged on a basis of what is called malum se, while those that have to do more with the ideals of American society are based on malum prohibitum. 

Canadian law in all respects is based upon English Common Law, like many other ex-colonies, while America opted to change its procedures more readily and create a new way of dealing with its economy, politics and criminals.  Because of this we see an approach whereby American criminal law has been unified, at least in theory, so that people might understand how different crimes are related to one another and how penalties might be expected to occur.  In Canada and the United Kingdom, however, English Common Law is an ancient system and as such is not quite so uniform in its interpretation of crime and punishment.  Canadian law leaves more room for independent interpretation from a judge while the American system does not.