[barries]

Can't upvote enough because this is the single most troubling aspect of our (US) justice system today: as soon as you are charged, your quality of life is ruined unless you are both wealthy and lucky enough to avoid pretrial incarceration. Even if you are both wealthy and lucky, the stress, effort and money required only to be found "not guilty" or get charges dismissed is a huge burden.

Even if there were redress for cases when "the system" makes a mistake, you can never get your quality of life back.

[mahyarm]

Unfortunately this seems like the trend internationally. It's just the justice systems in other countries just seem to be less aggressive, but have similar or even worse privileges.

The human rights court for example in Canada is known as pretty much a kangaroo court. But Canadian law enforcement is not nearly as aggressive and militarized, and the country does not suffer from an as large historical SES gap that can cause this aggression to develop in the first place.

[s_q_b]

It's funny to hear that perspective from a Canadian. In comparative constitutionality, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a modern update to the US Bill of Rights.

The United States Constitution has served as the template for countless founding documents, especially those written constitutional documents in most of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The innovations in the Constitution were threefold. First, a federalist system in which states ceded only specific enumerated powers to a central government. Second, a balance of powers between three branches with differing missions, members, and procedures. Third, a specific list of tasks that fell explicitly outside the powers of the central government. These are commonly termed federalism, separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights.

The federalism experiment failed, beginning with the establishment of true Federal supremacy following the Civil War and ending with the SCOTUS decisions that expanded the definition of "interstate commerce" to include virtually everything. The United States Federal government is for all intents and purposes now a government of general jurisdiction. This is what they have in e.g. Britain, so this is neither a good nor a bad thing, but it's simply no longer a differentiator from other modern governments.

Separation of powers is failing us right now. Without controlling both houses of Congress, with a supermajority in the Senate, and the Presidency can accomplish any coherent agenda.

Our third contribution, the Bill of Rights, is still holding relatively strong. Unfortunately, it's a few centuries old, and we've had to update it quite a bit by quite creatively reading rights into text where they might not really exist.

So the search is on in academia for a bill of rights that's a better model for new documents than the United States version. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the most commonly examined alternative. And the Supreme Court of Canada is generally considered more activist than SCOTUS.

So it's strange to hear that tribunal described as a kangaroo court. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering how the experience of an informed citizen differs from the prevailing winds in academia here.

One thing that troubles me about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that it has an explicit escape clause to suspend it. In fact, I believe it was invoked two years ago during the student protests in Quebec. An off-button seems like a major anti-pattern for a bill of rights.