The definitive Constitutional rights and freedoms comparison thread.

[Lunatech]

Now, on to the Fifth:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation.

This is a big one in the legal system, here in the US, with lots of case law behind it. In essence, a citizen cannot be compelled to testify against themself, cannot be tried for the same crime twice, and guarantees life, liberty, and property will not be forfeit wothout due process of law. It also establishes a limitation on emminent domain, which is the right for the government to sieze private property for public use. You'll note that it also lays out an exception to this rule. A member of our armed forces does not have this right guaranteed under the constitution. This is because they are beholden to a different code of law, known as the Iniform Code of Military Justice.

Taken one by one, I would start with the first part. A citizen cannot be compelled to testify against themself. Whenever you see a US courtroom drama, and the person on the witness stand says, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself," they are invoking this right. Pretty simple, really.

Next, we have the double jeopardy clause, which states that a citizen cannot be tried for the same crimne twice. In other words, if a man is treid for the murder of his mother, and acquitted, he cannot then be prosecuted for murdering his mother again, even if new evidence surfaces that implicates him. But if he were then to murder his father, he could be tried for that. Again, pretty simple.

The guarantee of life, liberty, or property is the part that law enforcement has had a problem with, in the past. Incarceration during trial is fine, but I believe there is a limit to how long law enforcement can hold a person without charging them of a crime. Also, especially of late, there seems to be a push to sieze accused drug peddlers assets before they are convicted, which would be in direct violation of this law. Not sure on the case law, but if it hasn't already, I would like to see the SCOTUS hand down a ruling on that. I can understand if someone uses a legitimate enterprise for criminal functions having their business put into a receivership until exhonerated, but the police in some places are actually selling off siezed property before conviction, and I can't wait to see this slapped down hard by the SCOTUS.

Finally, there is the guarantee that the government has to give "just compensation" for property siezed for public use. This means that if the fair citizen of Ada County decide to put a highway or city park where my home is, they will have to pay me fair market value for it. We have seen some recent funny business on the part of local governments, and their interpretation of "public use," but this triggered a landslide of legislation throughout the country, sponsored by incensed property owners. For an entertaining read, check out this wiki on Kelo vs. The City of New London.

How about it? Anybody have anything similar?

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Bold mine. Does this not mean that the treaty is not legally binding in Australia? Please clarify, as it looks like one of your statements directly contradict another. I am not being obtuse, I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Yes they are not legally binding but we enjoy them anyway. The point I am trying to make is that the absence or formally written rights does not necessarily mean they do not exist in practise. Without knowing what these rights are I find little that affects me that I would consider an infringement of my rights.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I will settle for law or implied, but the reality is you are just being lazy. I told you I could compare freedoms between Australia and the US on my own, and I can. For example, you stated that Australia does not have a codified version of the right to freedom of assembly or freedom of religion. A quick google search shows that you do, indeed, have those two freedoms, and they are quite well documented here and here.

I searched our constitution. Good find on your part. However these are not conditionally enforced or even all actual laws as far as I can see. They only serve to support my point that we enjoy such implied freedoms without them being supported by a constitution.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I have no doubt that you are enjoying most of the same freedoms that we are, but not all of them. I am pointing out that if you want to claim that you are just as free as I am, you are going to have to back it up. Not just tell me that you feel free.

As prescribed by your constitution and enjoyed by me-
First Amendment to the US Constitution: Yes
Second Amendment: no (and by the definition neither do you entirely)
Third: Don’t know.
Fourth: Yes (as much as you do)

Originally Posted by Lunatech

And you told me that the Second Amendment was irrelevant. Nice dodge.

You asked me to discuss it. I questioned its relevance in that discussion. I did not say that it was irrelevant. However I concede, I believe it is irrelevant in as much as the reasons and environment it was written in no longer exist. And the relevance of your stated rights should be up for discussion in any case. Otherwise one could post totally spurious rights and laws that have no benefit or effect and just do a number count to win.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Until your Parliament passes a law that establishes the death penalty. Thern you have to elect a government that repeals the law. Or it goes to your High Court and they rule it unconstitutional. Just like us. Interesting.....

The last person executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan in 1967.
Australia is a federation of States. The Federal Government abolished the death penalty in 1973: Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 (Cth). All Australian States and Territories have abolished the death penalty
http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/deat.../australia.php

Originally Posted by Lunatech

If Timothy McVeigh were given thirty years to plan his next attack, I do not doubt that it would be just as devastating as his first. Still, I would rather see him locked up permanently then killed, but that is just my own view on how the government should work. We need not go into details, but I believe we are in agreement, here.

Yes I have fairly conservative views about recidivism and people who pose a danger to the wider society and refuse or cannot be rehabilitated.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

That is sad, as I am never satisfied when people who do these things get away.

They arrested people then acquitted them. It was a long tedious and in the end unfruitful process.

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by crisis

Yes they are not legally binding but we enjoy them anyway. The point I am trying to make is that the absence or formally written rights does not necessarily mean they do not exist in practise. Without knowing what these rights are I find little that affects me that I would consider an infringement of my rights.

In reality the second link I posted cites quite a bit of legislation in support of your right to free assembly. I just threw in the first link because it was an official Autralian government website, which I think can be accepted as documentation.

Originally Posted by crisis

I searched our constitution. Good find on your part. However these are not conditionally enforced or even all actual laws as far as I can see. They only serve to support my point that we enjoy such implied freedoms without them being supported by a constitution.

But they are implied and codified, which you will find if you dig a little. What reading I have done (and keep in mind, I have done only a little), I find your government quite enticing, aside from the firearms restrictions. But I am pretty sure that if I ever emigrated to Australia, I would probably end up in a profession that is on the "allowed" list.

Originally Posted by crisis

As prescribed by your constitution and enjoyed by me-
First Amendment to the US Constitution: Yes
Second Amendment: no (and by the definition neither do you entirely)
Third: Don’t know.
Fourth: Yes (as much as you do)

I said I would toss the third, since one of my own countrymen entered the discussion to tell us that that particular amendment was lame. But by strict definition, I actually do enjoy second amendment rights. Have I given the impression that I don't? Yes, there are laws that set limits, but these limits can be overcome by paying an extra tax and undergoing a background check. Mere paperwork, I assure you, but anyone who is a true hobbyist or wealthy enough is not limited by these laws.

Originally Posted by crisis

You asked me to discuss it. I questioned its relevance in that discussion. I did not say that it was irrelevant. However I concede, I believe it is irrelevant in as much as the reasons and environment it was written in no longer exist. And the relevance of your stated rights should be up for discussion in any case. Otherwise one could post totally spurious rights and laws that have no benefit or effect and just do a number count to win.

You are right, which is why I am sticking to documented and codified rights in my part of the discussion, and not implied rights. And again, I am not looking to win, but to learn.

Originally Posted by crisis

The last person executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan in 1967.
Australia is a federation of States. The Federal Government abolished the death penalty in 1973: Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 (Cth). All Australian States and Territories have abolished the death penalty
http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/deat.../australia.php

In the eighth amendment to the constitution, it states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.

This is the legal basis for which the States, and sometimes the Federal government, use for the abolition of the death penalty. Opponents state that death is both cruel and unusual, while proponents argue that death is neither cruel nor unusual for a repeat child molester who rapes a child for days on end, and then buries her alive. While I would agree that such montrous criminals should be locked up and have the key thrown away, I do not believe in the infallibilty of our system. The thought of one innocent person deliberately killed by the State angers me, as the State's main functions is to protect innocent life, not destroy it. I think that at some point, anybody on death row could be exonerated, and if it is done after the person is executed, then the State failed at this primary function.

Originally Posted by crisis

Yes I have fairly conservative views about recidivism and people who pose a danger to the wider society and refuse or cannot be rehabilitated.

At least if they are incarcerated, there is the possibilty of rehabilitation. Even if it takes sixty years.

Originally Posted by crisis

They arrested people then acquitted them. It was a long tedious and in the end unfruitful process.

Very sad, then.

So, any thoughts on the Fifth Amendment? Or should we discuss the eighth out of turn, as it was relevant to ther discussion of the death penalty? Or should I move on to the sixth?

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

So, any thoughts on the Fifth Amendment? Or should we discuss the eighth out of turn, as it was relevant to ther discussion of the death penalty? Or should I move on to the sixth?

I am about to leave on a fishing trip with 20 mates for a week. I will resume then if the thread is still live.
See Ya!

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by crisis

I am about to leave on a fishing trip with 20 mates for a week. I will resume then if the thread is still live.
See Ya!

Good luck!

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Now, on to the Fifth:



How about it? Anybody have anything similar?

I believe we have similar laws to all of those. I would really need to have some idea of law to confirm though.
Currently there is a move like yours to seize assets of drug dealers and organised criminals.

[Diuretic]

Looks like Eyre Peninsula....??

We don't have a Fifth. What we do have is what we borrowed from the Brits. When a person is suspected of committing an offence a police officer questioning the individual must caution that individual that they don't have to answer questions. If the police officer doesn't do that then a court is very likely to throw out the evidence of the interview from the point where the caution should have been administered. This is done in the absence of a jury, it's called a voir dire hearing.

In court there is a common law right to protect oneself against self-incrimination.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Looks like Eyre Peninsula....??

Around near Venus Bay. We stayed at Elliston and travelled around a bit.

[Diuretic]

Originally Posted by crisis

Around near Venus Bay. We stayed at Elliston and travelled around a bit.

Very nice over there. A bloke I used to work with retired a few years ago and has a place over that way. Great coastal areas. Can't let the secret out though

[Steerpike]

Article 1 of the Constitution of the Netherlands:

All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

A guarantee of equality of treatment.


The right to petition is in Article 5. The right of religious belief is in Article 6. Freedom of expression is in Article 7. Freedom of association is in Article 8. The right of assembly is in Article 9. The right to privacy is in Article 10.