11

There are a number of specific limitation on what can be made criminal in US law, derived from constitutional protection. Specific Rights Expressions of free speech, for example, cannot be made criminal, although there can be laws which regulate or impact speech to a degree. Similarly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits a law ...


8

That sounds a lot like the German Antragsdelikt (literally "crime by request"). That is a crime (defined in the criminal code), that can only be prosecuted if the victim requests it. Antragsdelikt mostly applies to less serious crimes, such as slander or petty theft, while "serious" crimes, such as robbery or assault must always be prosecuted (...


6

The bottom line is: yes, there are many statutes, in many countries, criminalizing speech based on the fact that the hearer finds them offensive. These may include: Laws against extremist political sppech (i.e., anti-Nazi laws) Laws against hate speech or racial or sexually discriminatory speech Laws against criticizing or hurting the feelings of specific ...


6

My vote is that the (prison, contract) term would not be enforceable. In Williams v. Walker-Thomas 350 F.2d 445, multiple items of furniture were purchased on credit, and the payments were "distributed" over all items so that no items were paid for until all items were paid for – thus the store could repossess all of the items, if one payment was missed. The ...


6

It is hard to measure accuracy in absolute terms because figuring out the truth is the problem that trials seek to solve in the first place. This is especially true of cases that go to trial. Cases that are almost sure to be resolved one way or the other by any tier of fact generally plea bargain (in criminal cases) or settle prior to trial (in civil cases)...


5

Generally speaking, the law in almost every common law and civil law jurisdiction does not allow incarceration to be a punishment for a mere breach of contract (when that breach of the contract was not intended at the time the contract was entered into by the parties by one of the parties but not the other). Historically, there was a remedy called "body ...


5

Judicial appointments in England and Wales (plus courts that cover the whole of the UK) are made by the Judicial Appointments Commission. This was set up in 2006 to improve the separation of powers in the UK, removing the ability of a government to select sympathetic judges. The committee comprises ...the judiciary, the legal profession, non-legally ...


5

The dichotomy between solicitors and barristers in the UK isn't one based on verbal definitions in the English language. In other words, the fact that barristers argue and solicitors don't isn't something that's inherent to the words, it's just how British law decided to divide it. Since those countries with solicitor generals don't have this dichotomy, they ...


5

Yes. According to Russian KoAP 20.1 "Small Hooliganism": Мелкое хулиганство, то есть нарушение общественного порядка, выражающее явное неуважение к обществу, сопровождающееся нецензурной бранью в общественных местах, оскорбительным приставанием к гражданам, а равно уничтожением или повреждением чужого имущества, - влечет наложение ...


5

Several scholars have addressed this issue. Here's a quick bibliography. It appears that the most relevant "experiments" are the imposition of loser pays in medical malpractice suits in Florida for the first half of the 1980s, and Alaska's loser pays system. The Gryphon article below includes and discusses a decent amount of empirical data; the Di Pietro et ...


5

Yes, in general US prosecutors are licensed attorneys if they're practicing law. You don't necessarily technically need a license if your job is purely administrative, but to appear in court you do. They are subject to professional ethics requirements, and can be disbarred for violating them. There may be a state or two where they aren't licensed, but the ...


5

The Wiki page on flag desecration is a good starting point. This site lists the situation for all states, giving a legal citation and synopsis. From this you can extract relevant differences such as whether all state flags are protected or only that state's flag. This won't tell you the actual status of the law, such as the Nebraska law, which a judge ruled ...


4

In Italy, to become a magistrato (judges and prosecutor) you have to pass a pubblic examination, managed by an examination commission composed mostly by senior magistrati, plus a few law University professors, plus a couple of members of the bar. The commission itself is named by the Ministro di Giustizia (italian attorney general, a strictly political ...


4

I can't do much better than the opening to Wikipedia's article on this: The contemporary legal systems of the world are generally based on one of four basic systems: civil law, common law, statutory law, religious law or combinations of these. However, the legal system of each country is shaped by its unique history and so incorporates individual ...


4

It's unenforceable for the same reason that they can't kill you as a term of the contract - you cannot contract to do something against the law. Holding someone against their will is a crime. Only government has the right to imprison and only in accordance with relevant law.


4

Process And Cultural Considerations He is in prison because he pleaded guilty to the crimes he was charged with by the prosector. So, there was no trial at which evidence contesting the charges was analyzed and compared to the relevant legal standard. As the linked story reports: In court, the 33-year-old conman pleaded guilty to 12 charges of cheating ...


3

Barristers are advocates, and their other roles fall out of that core role. I think of it this way: your solicitor takes care of your legal risk; your barrister is the 'big gun' you bring in for specific important legal advice and to represent you in person. I'll give you my experience from the perspective of working in a large government agency. For us, '...


3

Overview Trials and hearings before a judge aren't random, but they aren't terribly predictable either. The best empirical studies of high stakes felony jury trials suggest that the accuracy of a jury in a case that doesn't plea bargain is about 90%. They are right 90% of the time and wrong 10% of the time. The appeal process involving multiple instances ...


3

If a law is struck-down as unconstitutional, but all the precedent used to find it unconstitutional gets reversed; what becomes of the law? In U.S. law, the law has effect again, unless it has been amended or repealed in the meantime. Is it totally dead, needing be passed anew? In the U.S., no. It is not totally dead. It is merely dormant. It stays ...


3

I'm not sure if you are asking for each of the countries listed, but I am assuming that they are there merely for example. In the US, the are a variety of different rules for its different court systems. As a rule, each State can make its own rules for its court system, and the overarching Federal system has its own rules as well, although they run off of ...


3

In the US, Pennsylvania specifically, the court in Pettigrew v. Pettigrew, 207 Pa. 313 says that the law rec­ognizes property in a corpse, but property subject to a trust and limited in its rights to such exercise as shall be in con­formity with the duty out of which the rights arise. Larson v. Chase, 47 Minn. 307 likewise states in this country ...


3

This may depend on who is interpreting The Constitution. But one of the "originalist" interpretations made by Barnett in Reason's "Has The Constitution Lost Its meaning debate" is that The Constitution is not the law that governs the people, but rather it is the law which governs the people who govern the people. His argument for it is that the people ...


2

Yes. In English law, Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it illegal, among other things, to use abusive speech in the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it. You may also want to look at Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which describes how a state that has signed that convention may ...


2

In Australia this is not the case. Specifically, "the bar" refers to barristers who act either for the prosecution/plaintiff or the defendant. However, particularly in lower courts, people may be represented by solicitors who are not barristers. In addition, minor crimes are often prosecuted by Police Prosecutors who are serving police officers and may have ...


2

In Germany, the exact procedure depends on the level of government where the judges are appointed: Judges at the state (Bundesland) level (which are most judges) are chosen by the ministry of justice of the state in question, similar to other civil servants. Judges at the federal level (Bundesrichter) are elected by a council (Richterwahlausschuss). The ...


2

In the so-called common-law countries (or common law adversarial system, or common law jurisdictions) are prosecutors members of the (state) bar? If so, is that a requirement? If so, does that mean that they are somehow under the bar's disciplinary jurisdiction? The Practice of Law is Mostly State Regulated Almost all prosecutors are (and must ...


2

The criminal justice process begins when a crime is committed and ends when corrections are presented to the individuals involved. Everything that happens in the courts up to sentencing is all part of the criminal justice process. According to the FBI, pretrial hearings in front of a grand jury are, in fact, part of the criminal process. Grand Juries are not ...


2

Federal countries usually define the separation (and sometimes sharing) of legislative competencies in their constitutions. There will also usually be a "default" case for if the competency is not explicitly defined in the constitution. For example, in the United States, the default is to give legislative power to the individual states via the Tenth ...


2

My understanding is that defendants in Britain have to prove statements true by the preponderance of evidence, whereas in the U.S. the standard of evidence is "compelling" (a lower standard). This is not the case. Preponderance of the evidence can still be the burden of proof in the United States (in a civil libel case, although it must be proof beyond ...


2

In the german language, in jurisprudence, we have lots of latin terms / expressions, because latin expressions seem to be more exact. Is this also the case in the english speaking world? You are correct that there are many Latin expressions in the English speaking legal world. You are not fully correct regarding the reasons that this is the case, and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible