Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mardifoufs 884 days ago
That's funny because no, they are wrong. We can be compelled to answer questions that incriminate ourselves and our right to speak to a lawyer isn't as strong as it is in the US. You can be interrogated even after asking for a lawyer.
2 comments
twisteriffic 884 days ago
No, you are wrong, though you provide a humorous example of how effective that form of brainwashing is.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

link
mardifoufs 884 days ago
They can keep interrogating you after you ask for a lawyer even if your lawyer isn't present. It amounts to the exact same considering how vulnerable a person is during interrogation. Your link agrees with me. How is this not "not as strong as the US", which is what I said in my comment?

>There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer present throughout a police interview (Sinclair, supra at paragraphs 34-38). Rather, in most cases an initial warning, coupled with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel when the detainee invokes the right to counsel, satisfies section 10(b) (Sinclair, supra at paragraph 2).

Edit: This is what I mean

>Unlike the U.S. Constitution’s right to counsel under the fifth amendment, neither section 10(b) of the Charter nor the right to counsel allowed by Supreme Court cases allows for your lawyer to be present with you during an interrogation. That means that after you’ve spoken to your lawyer it could be hours or days before you speak to them again and the police will take every opportunity they can to get a statement from you that seals your conviction.

>https://www.jeffreismanlaw.ca/understanding-your-right-to-co...

link
wredue 884 days ago
No, you are wrong:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

I don’t even know how you could force someone to testify against themselves. Seems like an unreliable witness…

link
mardifoufs 884 days ago
What? How does that prove me wrong? You can still be forced to be a witness and answer questions even if they do incriminate yourself.

>In Canada a person has the right not to have any incriminating evidence that the person was compelled to give in one proceeding used against him or her in another proceeding except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. Thus, in Canada, a witness cannot refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, but receives full evidentiary immunity in return. https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent

link