Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen To Be Retried On Piracy Charges
cecil36 writes "Yahoo has the scoop on 'DVD Jon's' latest trial regarding DeCSS being used as a piracy tool. The article claims that Hollywood is losing $3 billion a year due to piracy *yawn*, but Johansen's lawyer believes the acquittal from the previous trial may be enough for him to win the case. The case is set to go again on December 2nd this year. What are the prospects of Johansen winning a second time?"
Social control - yes
Right-wing politics - hell no! Socialist influences more like.
Repression of dissident groups - no again
in GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUSegmentation fault
It's not a 'new trial', but a 'retrial'. Just as the defendant can appeal to a higher court, so can the prosecutors. Mind you, had the defendant appealed, it would have been more or less automaticly accepted, the prosecution must prove that something was wrong with the forst trial; that the judge used the law wrong, that evidence was overlooked or that there was some technicaly that wasn't right.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
This isn't a retrial, it's an appeal. It does make it suck considerably less than if it had been a retrial.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I'll bring out again that Norway does have something similar to US double jeopardy protection, however the protection is against retrial, not appeal. This is what is normal in legal systems not based on English common law. Appeals in Norway always happen to a higher court, and there are only three levels in the court system. The Supreme Court refuses most request for appeals, and the next level down usually only hear complaints about procedure or application of law and usually put substantial weight on the evidence and findings of the lower court.
As such, the burden of an appeals case is significantly lower than it would have been in a retrial. It's certainly not non-existant, but it's still lower.
Generally, though, looking at prison population in percentage of population compared to reported crime, it would seem that the Norwegian legal system is far less likely to convict you of anything. Add to that that Norwegian law imposes a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison followed by up to 10 years of regular check ins with the police, a sentence which is usually only used for multiple homicide cases or similar extensive violent crimes. And most crimes have legal maximum sentences that are much, much lower.
What you're left with is a legal system that I'd argue places lower burdens on a defendant overall: You may find that an aquittal get appealed, but you risk less (a significantly lower sentence, and significantly better conditions in prison), and it will likely take more to get a conviction even in the lower court.
Our right wing parties always complain about this, and want our legal system to become more like the US legal system in order to put more people behind bars... In Norway wanting to be "tough on crime" translates directly into wanting to copy the US.
Your point about Nigeria is good, but I'd like to point out there that the Sharia courts point to significant ethnic problems in Nigeria, which is divided pretty evenly between christians and muslims. Sharia courts in the muslim north only apply to muslims. Even so, the federal legal system has made it clear that it considers much of Sharia law to violate federal law, and the federal government has made it clear that anyone sentenced under Sharia law to a punishment not supported by the federal legal system can appeal and expect their sentences to be overturned more or less automatically in the higher court.
The problem faced by Obasanjo (the Nigerian president), though, is that Nigeria is just a few years away from it last period of military dictatorship, ethnic problems have caused significant clashes in the north (between christians and muslims), and ethnic unrest in the south west has placed a large part of Nigeria's oil production in jeopardy, while corruption is still widespread. In a situation like that, he hardly have the power base to address the problem of the Sharia courts - in the last election, the muslim north was an important area for him (despite being christian himself).
Obviously none of that diminish the problem of the sharia courts, but it should give some insight in why they're tolerated - the federal government is still way to weak to take the chance of another uprising or military coup.
Add to that that considerable weight will be given by the court to the judgement from the lower court, and the party who lost in the lower court starts at a significant disadvantage in the appeal court.