British FBI - Scary New Powers?
Discussion
[url]From the BBC News site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163871.stm):
"The new prosecutors will be able to offer criminals immunity from prosecution or a reduced sentence in return for testifying against fellow suspects and co-operating with the investigation.
They will also be able to compel witnesses to answer questions and produce documents of "substantial value" to an investigation."
Hang on a minute, doesn't that infringe on the right to silence?! Why isn't any fuss being kicked up about this or am I overreacting?
"The new prosecutors will be able to offer criminals immunity from prosecution or a reduced sentence in return for testifying against fellow suspects and co-operating with the investigation.
They will also be able to compel witnesses to answer questions and produce documents of "substantial value" to an investigation."
Hang on a minute, doesn't that infringe on the right to silence?! Why isn't any fuss being kicked up about this or am I overreacting?
How do BiB negotiate answers out of a tight lipped suspect? I don't mean the old desk drawer and bollocks technique, i was more thinking along the lines of clever questioning or carefully blackmailing them into a corner technique. How intensive is the training when it comes to questioning crims?
Do you ever give them a ciggy and then swipe it out of their mouth just after they've lit it and say: "listen up you slaaag!" ?
Do you ever give them a ciggy and then swipe it out of their mouth just after they've lit it and say: "listen up you slaaag!" ?
MilnerR said:
How do BiB negotiate answers out of a tight lipped suspect? I don't mean the old desk drawer and bollocks technique, i was more thinking along the lines of clever questioning or carefully blackmailing them into a corner technique. How intensive is the training when it comes to questioning crims?
Do you ever give them a ciggy and then swipe it out of their mouth just after they've lit it and say: "listen up you slaaag!" ?
Questioning is an art...and is taught....
To what degree...depends on what role you fulfil in the police...The training is intense and some tell me enjoyable...
I've never enjoyed it.
roadsweeper said:
[url]From the BBC News site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163871.stm):
"The new prosecutors will be able to offer criminals immunity from prosecution or a reduced sentence in return for testifying against fellow suspects and co-operating with the investigation.
They will also be able to compel witnesses to answer questions and produce documents of "substantial value" to an investigation."
Sounds just like the Stasi in East Germany, seems like we're just catching up at last!!
gone said:
I thought that witnesses could be forced to testify ?
There are methods that can be used by a court to get someone into a witness box who is relectant or refuses to be there. Getting them to speak is another matter!
"You can lead a horse to water but......."
I'm no legal expert, but surely when you take the witness stand you swear 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. They could be deemed to be in contempt of court for not testifying once you have led the horse to the witness box, then?
AFAIK what ever you say must be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think the judge can order you to answer the question (if you refused an order you'd be in contempt) but if you reply that you have no clear recollection of the events in question there's not a lot they can do.
Since it's not a quote i dont think we take take the "compel a witness to answer the question" as the exact wording of the law.
Taking it as written in the article you might be able to compel a gangster to rat on his mates by giving him a new id and house in spain but by the same law you could also compel a wife to rat on her husband by saying that their children will be taken into care if she doesn't admit he smacked them.
But it does still smack of the whole burgler"reasonable force" and mobile phone"due care" vagueness of the law. The fact is that 99% of things are covered already by law and adding new badly worded laws only adds new ways for both (relative) innocents to be punished harshly and nasty b****rs to exploit more loopholes.
There is not much that can't be sorted with a bit of common sense.
Taking it as written in the article you might be able to compel a gangster to rat on his mates by giving him a new id and house in spain but by the same law you could also compel a wife to rat on her husband by saying that their children will be taken into care if she doesn't admit he smacked them.
But it does still smack of the whole burgler"reasonable force" and mobile phone"due care" vagueness of the law. The fact is that 99% of things are covered already by law and adding new badly worded laws only adds new ways for both (relative) innocents to be punished harshly and nasty b****rs to exploit more loopholes.
There is not much that can't be sorted with a bit of common sense.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff