The Official Justice System/Legal Thread

Suggested and stemmed off from here. Here we discuss legal and justice systems around the world. Note that we"re not lawyers and thus things on this thread should NOT be taken as legal advice. Get a real lawyer in Real Life for that.

Starting off with a question: under what circumstances can you be charged with burglary without being charged for theft as well?

edited 17th Jan '13 4:57:41 PM by IraTheSquire

According to this link, burglary seems to be breaking and entering. You may have other motives besides theft (such as destruction of property); usually burglary doesn't get as much attention at that point because that charge overshadows it.

Okay, to clear things up, in the United States, each individual state has its own criminal code. Most offenses that you think of as "criminal" are state offenses. There are federal crimes as well, but (drugs aside) they are more exotic (airjacking, treason, etc.). Murder, theft; things of this nature will typically be handled by state law unless you are in a federal jurisdiction. So there might be 51 different answers to the OP's question in the United States alone.

I'll give you one of them. In Tennessee:

A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103(a).

A person commits burglary who, without the effective consent of the property owner:

(1) Enters a building other than a habitation (or any portion thereof) not open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft or assault;

(2) Remains concealed, with the intent to commit a felony, theft or assault, in a building;

(3) Enters a building and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft or assault; or

(4) Enters any freight or passenger car, automobile, truck, trailer, boat, airplane or other motor vehicle with intent to commit a felony, theft or assault or commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft or assault.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-402(a)

Therefore, you could commit burglary without committing theft if you broke into a building (or waited inside a building) or motor vehicle with the intent to commit a felony or assault; or you broke into a building and then attempted to commit a felony or assault.

Example: If I sneak into a (non 24-hour) Walgreens when it's closed with the intent to set it on fire, and no intent to steal anything, I have committed burglary without committing (or attempting to commit) theft, as I broke into a building with the intent to commit a felony (arson).

In Scotland, housebreaking is not a crime at all, though "housebreaking with intent to steal" is. If you want someone to leave, you are to rely on the law of delict (tort), and your remedy lies under the delict of trespass. A degree of "self-help" is expected first.

Necro time!

I have questions regarding American lawyers.

1. Do you become a lawyer as soon as you pass the Bar exam?

2. What are, if any, requirements for taking the test?

3. What are distinctions between a laywer and an attorney?

I have absolutely no idea. But if your were considering a Career in law, I've heard from some reputable sources the gravy train pulled out and won't be coming back in the foreseeable future. It's not the high demand high paying field it was five years ago.

Oh no, I will never practice law,for several reasons. I was just curious, that's all.

I only study Law as supplementary degree to my translation one. I have no chance of becoming lawyer due to blatant nepotism rife in legal world.

Requirements to take the Bar exam differ between states. I know that in at least some states you're not allowed to take it unless you already have a law degree. To my knowledge, a lawyer and attorney are the same thing.

I have no chance of becoming lawyer due to blatant nepotism rife in legal world.

you have got no idea how refreshing it is to hear a young person say that.

^ Why is that?

As an young man who entered the work force shortly before the GFC kicked in I've seen a lot of ambitious career goals goals go sour.

I have been always rather pragmatic about my education and I aim for legal translation because there are no regulations and unions that govern that field, and larger demand than supply of experts. Lawyers here are not good at English (and their own native language. Some stuff drafted by them sounds like utter bullshit, like for example half page long sentences).

I'm studying to be a paralegal, so I get to avoid the horrors of crushing law school debt. Currently, I intern at a small law office that specializes in family law (read: divorces), defense (mostly traffic cases), and similar things.

My hope is that, even if the world has too many lawyers, they can never have too many lawyer minions.

One lawyer is too many

Any way good luck to you and kudos on advoiding the law school debt trap.

The jury system. Trial by a jury of one's peers is something of a sacred cow to Americans; it was one part of the British judicial system we decided to keep when striking out on our own.

Although variations on it have existed since time immemorial, "a jury of peers" entered preferred status as of the Magna Carta. At that time, most judges were appointed by the Crown, and not always based on their wisdom and knowledge of law. Indeed, if the ruler of England was not a nice person, judges could be selected on the basis of how much they sucked up to the King or Queen, or how large their bribes were.

And so it was with bad King John. This was just one of the many grievances the nobles had against Lackland, but a rigged judicial system really rankled. The Magna Carta only gave the jury of peers right to the upper crust, but over the centuries, the courtesy was extended downward so that even the lowliest homeless person could be assured of a jury trial in major cases.

With their strong distrust of sovereign power, it's not surprising the Founding Fathers kept the jury process for American courts.

There are certainly problems with juries, and reform of the court system is always a worth topic.

As I said in the other thread, juries are worth keeping. Juryless courts tend to do okay for civil cases and minor infractions (we don't bother with a jury for most civil cases), but we have a terrible track record with them for bigger things. I mean, even putting aside the historical context of British kangaroo courts in the American colonies, our closed courts in the top ranks even today become very, very slanted in favor of the state. One need only look at the absurdly skewed record on whistleblower courts to see that.

Also, impersonating a member of 4-H, falsely claiming goods to be made by Native Americans, transporting water hyacinths, and improper use of Woodsy the Owl.◊

If you ever see Rule 34 of Woodsy the Owl, it is actually a federal crime.

edited 15th Jul '13 1:20:49 PM by Pykrete

Also, impersonating a member of 4-H

I admit nothing, but I may need to send a check soon.

I was always taught in uni that there is very little difference between inquisitorial and adversarial systems of justice, except that adversarial (our) systems tend towards acquitting the guilty whilst inquisitorial ones tend towards convicting the innocent. Personally, I'd rather acquit the guilty.

Not only that, but inquisitorial systems are also outstandingly vulnerable to corruption. Half the point of a jury of peers is to diffuse that by bringing in random dudes every single time, which makes it much more difficult for interests to capture the court or for a small handful of people to go on a power trip.

edited 15th Jul '13 5:14:20 PM by Pykrete

Indeed. That's very conscript juries. Anyone who chooses to be Juror clearly has listed vested interests

the downside being it also can make it far more susceptible to stupid people.

It's a mixed bag on that. The prosecution and defense can usually each challenge 3 people off the jury. Typically whoever has the strongest/weakest case will challenge off whoever looks the dumbest/smartest respectively.

It's worth noting that in the United States, while everyone's entitled to a trial by jury, most states allow defendants to waive that right and request that a judge try the case instead. In fact, most criminal cases in that country are never brought before a jury, but instead resolved through a plea bargain.

edited 15th Jul '13 8:43:37 PM by RavenWilder

That has more than anything to do with prosecutors threatening them with appreciable fractions of their life expectancy in prison on absurdly trumped-up charges if they don't cooperate, guilt and innocence be damned. It's pretty typical for prosecutors to coerce people into a plea bargain that gives them the sentence they would've shot for in court by threatening them with several times that.

I mean, we're basically the poster boys for why plea bargains are banned in a good deal of the rest of the first world. Here:

Note that the charges brought to the observed students were for academic dishonesty. I'd imagine you'll see even more than 56% of innocents plead guilty when threatened with 20+ years in prison for criminal charges.

Another tactic to coerce people into pleas is to set prohibitively high bail. It could conceivably take longer rotting in jail for your trial to start than you'd get sentenced to in a plea.

edited 15th Jul '13 9:14:38 PM by Pykrete