Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS: Jon Johansen Retrial Begins
JPMH writes "Jon Johansen is back on trial for DeCSS. Despite the acquittal back in January, the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges. The retrial begins today."
This is really not good for peoples civil liberties at all - it sucks! This will mean lots of people will get sued potenially.
Is it a boat?
"OK, OK, Retry Immediately, Man!"
So, let me get this straight : a guy does something that raises suspicion and gets a trial.
He's found innocent.
So, he's being tried again... and again ?
Why don't they directly send him to the electric chair ?
After all : they won't stop until he's found guilty, will they ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
double jeopardy, where the scores are double
If he was then he'll get off.
try, try again.
</PUN CLASS=BAD>
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I didn't know that Hollywood, USA had the legal authority to put Norweigans thru a retrial after an acquittal. What next, will Jon be tried as a terrorist?
In other words, nobody is hurt, financially, by me using Linux and DeCSS instead of Windows and WinDVD. I've paid all my licenses, including my Microsoft tax (actually, I got a free license from a site-license, but somebody paid it, which is really all that matters).
I'm thinking you were trolling, but I wanted to bring this up anyway.
It's also the worlds 3. largest oil exporter. These days thats quite lucrative.
If any of those guys prosecuting Jon have at least one DVD ripped at home.
If it wasn't for Jon, I wouldn't have 60+ DVDs at home and the movie industry wouldn't have 900 of my hard earned cash.
I don't have a DVD player, I dont run windows. If it wasn't for Jon and the fine guys at Ogle, Mplayer, Xine, etc I wouldn't buy DVDs.
The movie industry needs locking up in a cell with a 7 foot guy called Buba wearing a dress. Pricks!
Losely, it's "Oko" for 'eco' (economical) and "krim" for 'crime'.
I think. I'm not Norsk.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Norway has a two-phase court system.
If either party disagree with the verdict at the lower court they can appeal and get a new trial with more judges (and depending on the type of crime, either a jury or a panel of judges)
They have oil...
Why oh why did you post that juicy little tidbit of nothingness? What value did that comment add to the discussion?
It's called an appeal process.
The prosecution is appealing, and this is the first retrial.
Jeez....
If it weren't for Jon... someone else would have done it. duh.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
But even if they dont convict, he probably get brought to trial then on hacking iTunes.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
Oh no? What about O.J.? Same crime, two different courts (criminal vs. civil). Is this the same kind of situation?
Not to feed the troll, but according to this, Norway has a per capita GDP of $31,800, a Gini index of .26, and $68 billion in exports vs. $37 billion in imports. Not too shabby for a bunch of fjord-huggers -- and they're Gini index sure kicks the US's ass (we're at something like .43)
All's true that is mistrusted
DeCSS2 will be created just like DeCSS was, but instead of one "Jon Johansen" its creator's name will most likely sound like "d00d" or "DaMan".
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Again, civilized countries don't let the government appeal an acquittal, which is precisely what's happening here.
It's an appeal.
The fact that you don't know that you can appeal a decision in most civilized countries reflects badly on your educational system.
Retrial is if e.g. the trial is decleared a "mistrial", or in the case of Norway, normally only if the Supreme Court finds that the lower court were waaay off (normally, they'd correct a sentence themselves, a retrial is basicly only if it'd take up too much of the court's time to do it all over again).
:p
Also, for the people I see making fun of the name, it's really Økokrim, Øko = eco- of economics, and krim of crime... It's just not fucking possible to get slashdot to show HTML character codes
Anyway, I hope they appeal it all the way to the top and fail with flying colors... too bad, that by then the EUCD will probably already be in effect, making the precedent outdated...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
According to the article, when a precedent is being set, it is common for an appeal to succeed, and this is what has happened. Actually (despite hoping Jon will prevail) I think this is a pretty good idea - a second look at something with big ramifications is probably a good thing under any circumstances...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Appeals are still double-jeopardy. In the U.S., the prosecution cannot appeal an innocent verdict, while the defense can appeal a guilty verdict as long as they can show sufficient grounds. This is to protect citizens against the possibility of being harassed until they go bankrupt or are found guilty.
This appeal is a perfect reason why "no double-jeopardy" laws exist.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yes, let's make stupid assumptions and furthermore live out the "The American Justice System is the Best In The World"-delusion. It's especially rich coming from non-jurisconsults.
no offense, but i doubt the suits care - you represent such a very tiny % of the market for their products.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
This is an appeal. It happens in your beloved USA as well.
Before we all get all tear-eyed with nationalistic ideals etc etc, we should remember where RIAA and MPAA comes from.
(I am not a lawyer, of course, but...)
You certainly CAN be tried for the same crime twice. You cannot, however, be tried on the same charge. Not to mention, you can be tried in criminal court, and then again in civil court, a la OJ Simpson.
No, admittedly, it's not likely that the Justice system - if you call it that - would try you for manslaughter after finding you "not guilty" of murder, but you CAN be found guilty of one infrigement and not of another - for the same crime.
You cannot appeal an innocent verdict in the U.S. Such an appeal would be considered...
wait for it....
DOUBLE-JEOPARDY
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The prosicution cannot appeal any decision, only the defence can in a criminal trial.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Yes! If I was a current moderator I'd 've given you all 5 of my points. Well said. But I think you need to reserve a spot in that cell for the Congress too.
The current trial is in Lagmannsretten. If Okokrim looses again (or if they win) either party may appeal to Hoyesterett (Norwegian supreme court) - they may or may not take the case.
Good for you, but Linux wasn't the first things on the minds of Johansen and his warez buddies. They had a GUI Ripper out for Windows before the code was even running on Linux.
Also, Johansen didn't really "crack" CSS, he only found a private key that some vendor had stupidly included in their software. All modern ripping software uses a real crack that was developed at MIT, I think. DVD CSS would have broken soon or later without Johansen - it was known to be a weak implementation even in hollywood.
The real question is why isn't YOUR post modded higher?
After all, IT IS insightful, compared to the original dumbass question "I'm curious how this will turn out", which wasn't.
this is misleading.
according to the complaint filed against him he was charged with vilolating section 145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."
according to the criminal complaint he was charged with accessing the master key, the master key list, as well as the contents of a protected disk.
the question is whether the master key, and the master key list, which are intentionally encrypted, can be considered as data he is not "entitled to access."
to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole.
despite the confidence expressed by his lawyer, his case is not so clear cut.
How the hell is parent post "insightful"?? LOL
He's apparently trying to crack imusic http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34141.html
I was still sitting on legos and eating giant bowls of Sugar Crisp in front of the Smurfs when I was 15.
When will we see the takedown of fair use in this country?
OT Question: Don't the major linux players (IBM, RedHat, um.. Dell ect.) distribute some sort of linux DeCSS DVD player? Why are they not being hunted down and sued by the MPAA?
In sweden you can get tried three times for the same crime, in the local court, the district court and the supreme court. For example, one man suspected of killing the swedish pm in 1986 was found guilty in the local court, aquitted in the district court and the state will go to supreme court to get him if they ever find more evidence; they don't want to 'throw away' their last chance.
"the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges."
The dangers of viagra abuse.
If it weren't for Jon Johansen, then I wouldn't have hundreds of DVD rips at home. For shame for making this all possible, Jon. Rot in a cell!
Would somebody PLEASE whack that moderator upside the head with a clue-by-four? That comment is just dripping with sarcasm, but NOOOOO you couldn't see it! +1 Funny baby!
Norway can roughly pay Swedens foreign dept tomorrow.
but then again - if he's found innocent once more, the OKOKRIM will most likely be sentenced to pay his legal fees, so 'bankruptcy' is not applicable here..
There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice. In Norway the limit is three times. First the Tingretten (lower court), then Lagmannsretten (sort of jury-based, depends .. it may either be a jury, or a combination of judges, some jurors, and some people educated in the field), and finally Hoyesterett (Supreme court). Both the government and the prosecuted may choose to appeal for any reason.
The government may appeal if they lose, or if they don't think the punishment is harsh enough.
Furthermore, if I remember correctly, Hoyesterett may reschedule the case back into Lagmannsretten if it thinks it should be a retrial there, instead of them making a decision. I'm not sure, but I don't think that happens often, unless there is doubt about presented evidence or somesuch. Not sure, really.
In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!"
... try him, try him again.
Until he's in shreds, in SHREDS, I say.
... er, I mean - "until justice is served".
yes, we have no bananas
... but the other way around would basically be true as well. If Jon is acquitted "the crime" he committed will be fully LEGAL in Norway.
:)
Sorry for the grammar...
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
You are glad that you live in a country that are among the very few that can sentence minors to the death penalty? And other examples : Guantanamo, Mitnick in isolation for ?, O.J. I would rather live in Norway.
Actually most civilized countries, regardless of your definition, does NOT have protection against appeals to a higher court, only against retrial. You have the concept of double jeopardy in Norway as well, but applied to retrials not appeals, as it is throughout most of Europe, and in fact in most countries with a legal system not originating in from English common law.
So it should boil down to whether people are entitled to access data on DVDs for which they paid fair and square. Why do we pay $25/DVD if it isn't for the right to access the data on them?
Actually most DO let bot sides appeal to a higher court. Applying double jeopardy to appeals is something limited to a relatively small number of countries, mostly with legal systems based in common law.
No, OJ dis not face criminal prosecution twice for the same crime. The key is the governments ability to restrict or revoke an individual's liberties.
Both trials were a farce. The criminal trial demonstrated how flawed the legal system is. A jury of your peers has turned into a jury of the uneducated and unemployed who understand neither the legal system nor the law, much less the simple physics of everyday life. The civil trial demostrated the inequity of the legal system. If OJ had been a penniless street kid he wouldn't have gotten sued. He had money, and the family decided to punish him financially via the courts. OF course, as a penniless street kid, he would have hanged after his court appointed attorney slept through most of the trial.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That's not really that germane, I don't think. I can see that you would make the case as, he didn't do this for a significant non-infringing use, he did it with the express point to infringe (I'm not familiar with the Johansen case specifically). But regardless, there is a significant non-infringing use of even Windows-only decoders (ripping for backup or legal copies, for example) and the legality of banning all reverse engineering or unexpected use is suspect, in my opinion. But then, I'm speaking US law, as well.
What, did you think that corporations run the show only in the good ol' US? It's global, man, for goodness sake! And people become more and more tolerant of this way of life every day (path of least resistance). Unless something is done, our kids won't even know what freedom means.
Must-not-watch TV!
Why would Norway want to pay Sweden's foreign department? Doesn't Sweden have enough money to pay their own government employees?
The wording here is misleading. He's not really being tried in the same court...if I had to compare it to something most of us would know, it would be the US Supreme Court. You can start small and work your way up through the system, this is what has happened with his case.
What we have now, that we didn't have much of before was derivative works. Just who is using DeCSS? There are certainly a lot of DVD players for Linux that use the libraries to play encrypted DVDs...But on the other hand, every DVD ripper that uses DeCSS code is going to hurt his case.
The Grandfather (heil!) actually wrote in Barndutsch, not in your inferior widespread and especially rebarbative Hochdeutsch.
...for fighting the good fight.
He's a bright kid (in the computer sense), and yet - apparently - stupid enough to pick on a 600 pound gorilla (RIAA/MPAA). I suppose the only thing to say is, "Thank you." Even US corporations with fat legal warchests aren't willing to take such a chance. Every revolution must start somewhere, and most truly successful ones start at the bottom.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!
In theory, yes that could happen. In reality, the DA would simply try to nail you on some bullshit charge that can carry a hefty penalty. e.g. Al Capone was nailed on tax evasion after the various agencies were continually unable to prove his involvement in serious crimes.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually, there are an abundance of crimes for which you can be made to stand trial twice in the US. For example, murder is illegal in most states, as well as the federal level. If you are acquitted at the state level, you can still be brought to trial at the federal level, in effect, being tried twice for the same crime.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I'm glad I live in Norway and don't have to defend Guantanamo base.
and in that business they have to be friends with the US or Bush will go postal on their asses :p
And that's probably why Jon is being retried. You know, it's just a question of avoiding to give Bush two reasons to invade...
What do you think we meant by "civilised countries"? No country that values the state above the citizens can be considered civilised.
I have a no-region player at home.
This Toshiba was made and legally sold in Europe before Y2K.
So, if they sue me because of this, they will end up suing themselves as Toshiba is also a member of the DVD joint committe, iirc...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What's to be taken from this is that in many countries the predetermined guilt of an individual isn't always pronounced because its often hard to find something worth talking about more than once. That it's going back to trial means the necessary politics and petting which make a successful conviction have been properly secured this time. The defendant is older too.
In this case, there's actually a useful piece of code, the potential for exploits and the need for a good example to be made that makes the smart sheeple think twice before sassing their international corporate overlords. After all, cheap self-destructing media that's secure enough for people to sell that only works for the people it's supposed to work for is a great business plan that pays attorneys. Anything that possibly imperils that model must be flayed to the bone and hung before the public in order to stop such transgressions from happening again.
In these "civilized" times public hanging, torture, mutilation, and prolonged display won't sell many commercials, but going through the hand-waving and sound-bytes will keep media's talking heads babbling for weeks, or even months. In the end, Jon will probably get some kind of sentence--public service or if they drag it out enough, actual prison.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
I'll double that. I'm in exactly the same situation, no dedicated DVD player, and no Windoze
Wow. Slashdot people are pretty amazing. People arguing back and forth over what is insightful and what isn't. Arguing about what is a good question and what isn't. Hell, I didn't even ask a question, so there was no original question! I am so confused.
You can only be tried at the next level if the appeals judge (a judge at the same level where the appeals trial is held) accepts the appeal. There has to be some new information, or another good reason, as far as I know. I can't say for sure, but I have the impression that justice is *at least* as well served by the Norwegian legal system than the US one.
Here's from a norwegian newspaper:
. jh tml?articleID=682755
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article
If you scroll a little down you'll find:
According to newspaper VG's web site, the
technical nature of the case led to judge Wenche
Skjaeggestad asking the prosecutor to explain the
meaning of the central term 'algorithm' (a
computational procedure applied to solve a
problem), a request eventually satisfied by one
of the expert assessors.
Now, who could expect the prosecutor to actually understand what it is he's beeing charged of? That would just be silly..
North Sea Oil - There be oil in them there waters!
They just won't let it go.
Most civilized countries have also abolished the death penalty.
The 5TH Amendment protects one against double jeopardy until it is not politically correct to do so. When this happens they just find a different crime to charge you with for the same offense. Usually it is violating some one else's civil rights.
Yeah - be happy!; in the US only 10% of the cases gets to a trial at all; the other 90% is blackmailed and never sees a judge. In Norwich on the other hand all suspects get a chance to be judged by the judge and after that both parties get a second chance to be judged by a higher judge. Now which of those systems do you prefer?
0x or or snor perron?!
Who needs trials when you have the patriot act?
The victims of the crime can also sue in civil court for "wrongful death" or some other charge if the crime wasn't murder. This is why OJ had to pay quite a bit of his remaining fortune to Ron Goldman's family. Yes, he was protected against prison but double jeopardy doesn't actually protect against bankruptcy.
Double jeopardy only applies to the criminal justice system.
Do they do "best of three?"
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Nothing like companies/industries not wanting their products to be sold.
It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"This is to protect citizens against the possibility of being harassed until they go bankrupt or are found guilty."
Except, in scandinavian countries (which have very similar legal systems) there is no reason to go bankrupt in a criminal case. Your legal advise is payed by the government anyway. To claim that all civilized legal systems must build on the same principles as the US is, to put it mildly, stupid.
There are good reasons for the prosecutor to be able to appeal. A higher court is normally more competent than a lower one. Personally I don't like a system where the only way to have a supreme court ruling is with convictions in lower courts. This creates incentives for lower courts to convict, just to have the case tested.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I understand the confusion...
Actually most civilized countries, regardless of your definition, does NOT have protection against appeals to a higher court, only against retrial. You have the concept of double jeopardy in Norway as well, but applied to retrials not appeals, as it is throughout most of Europe, and in fact in most countries with a legal system not originating in from English common law.
So basicly what your saying is there is a protection against a retrial.
Now let's look at someone elses reply to the parent.
Re:Ok, that really sucks (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 07:36 AM December 2nd, 2003 (#7608909)
It's called an appeal process.
The prosecution is appealing, and this is the first retrial.
The first retrial in a system that forbids retrials?
In short most civilised nations can use appeals to get around dubble jeppordy
I don't actually exist.
Because the prosecutor already had great power over the individual by bringing charges against them. The individual, perhaps complete innocent, is at great risk and expense to defend himself. If after being found innocent the charges can just be made again, the individual incurs additional cost and risk (as well as loss of time, ie freedom) even though the courts have already found that he was innocent.
In telling a prosecutor that it's OK to put a person through a trial even if they are not ready to make their case, you open the door to a lot of needless prosecution. There is little disencentive to not charge an individual even when your case isn't strong and complete, since if you loose you can bring charges again, and the individual will actually be in worse shape than before (will have less funds to defend himself, for one thing). A system where you cannot be found innocent and then retried is society's defense against excessive prosecution. And this case is a perfect example of it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice."
There are very good reasons: for example, historically juries in civilised nations have routinely refused to convict people for breaking unpopular laws, effectively providing direct democracy in the jury box. Since the prosecutor can't get a retrial, that person is now free.
This is why Prohibition was finally ended in America: it simply became too difficult for the cops to get anyone convicted. In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.
"In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!""
Indeed they could. Which is far better than an innocent person being persecuted by the government with repeated retrials... particularly if that "guilty" person was breaking some bogus law that 90% of the population oppose.
See, this is the difference between the civlised, "innocent until proven guilty" nations and the authoritarian "guilty until proven innocent" nations. As bad as some abuses have been in Britain and America, we've never started World Wars or slaughtered millions of our own people: there are good reasons for that, and our long-standing fear of giving people uncontrolled power is the largest one.
These court cases should illustrate to Mr. Johansen and rest of us:
If you're going to crack open the schemes of the corporate overlords, do so anonymously.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Thanks to the oil, Norway is one of the richest countries in the world.
This was all dealt with way back when
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Doesn't Sweden have enough money to pay their own government employees?
Not really... no. I don't know why Norway should pay anything, I just bragged the fact that they can if they felt like it.
This type of travesty could never happen in the United States. We don't just keep re-trying someone until we can finally prove they are guilty. We just stick 'em in Guantanimo Bay.
fifth sigma, inc.
Oh, go watch en execution or something, won't you?
And we're (yes, I'm Norwegian...) also a member of NATO, so Bush has an even better reason not to invade. It's not very wise to attack a country you and your allies also have an agreement to protect. Not that Bush is a wise man in any known sense of the word.
I don't think Buba is the one wearing the dress in that scenario.
Then again, I could be wrong.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
FYI.. Ashcroft is trying to get that removed in the Patriot Act II.
The most dangerous enemy of the United States is not Bin-Laden, Sadaam, or anyone else from another Country.
The most dangerous enemy of the United states is the so called "men" who are gutting us from the inside.
I'll bet all fo you $20.00 that these assholes will get re-elected and re-appointed.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In the US, you can be tried criminally and then civilly for the same action. Also, each one can be appealed a number of times, and any aspect (motion, lawyers involved, jurors, evidence, law enforcement involved, the location of the trial, politicians, and a thousand other worthless minutia) can be appealed multiple times. Look at a death penalty case. That one crime can effectively generate many hundreds, and even a few thousands, of hearings. In Norway, a retrial is the same as an appeal in the US, but there's nowhere to go. You lose the retrial, you're all done.
Thanks, at least someone "got it" :)
Show me a greater and more dangerous uncontrolled power right now than the USA...
well this is the partly the basis of the appeal isn't it? the lower court got this wrong. emphatic or not. accessing the contents is one thing, accessing the master key and master key list are something else.
as i said, it's not so clear cut.
wrong
You can appeal any verdict in the US. You need to have a reason to appeal though, such as a potential mis-trial, tampered evidence, new evidence, etc. If there are no anomolies or grounds for retrial, the appeal is denied.
Larry Flint was found innocent and the prosecution appealed to the supreme court, which upheld the decision.
Know the laws before quoting them.
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
No, different in every case.
OJ was tried in a crinimal court of law and found not guilty based on the evidence. HE was then pursued in a civil court of law and was found to be responsable for the deaths, regardless of not being guilty of the deaths. There is a difference, someone can be found responsable for something without actually doing it.
The bit that most people leave out here is that OJ appealed the responsable verdict and it was found in his favour, so essentially he came out of the whole ordeal with nothing against him, except now his reputation was in tatters.
In some European legal systems, you have a tier of courts. In the UK this goes from your local magistrate, all the way up to the House of Lords (yes, one part of our government actually takes part in the legal process), and increasingly, the Euorpean Court of Human Rights. Either party can apply to the court above the one that returned the verdict for leave to appeal, which basically means you move up a stage in the courts to a court which has more standing. That court can either grant your application for an appeal, or turn it down. If you get it turned down, you have one more chance to have that decision overturned, if not then the last verdict returned stands.
The Double Jepordy stands if the above process has been exhausted and the defendant is still found not guilty. He cannot be arrested and charged with the same crime for successive times, even if compelling new evidence has been discovered. This is about to change in the UK, as the current government is introducing legislation which will allow a person to be tried for a crime multiple times if compelling new evidence is discovered.
From what I know, the Norwedgen legal system is much like the UKs, with tiers of courts, each having more standing than the one below. A verdict can be appealed to the court above, basically in the hope that that court may have different ideas, or understand the situation better. Indeed, some cases are passed up the chain voluntarily by lesser courts who deem themselves to not have enough legal standing to deal with the situations that arise.
He bought the disc. He owns that media and what ever is on it. He does not own the right to distribute what is on it, that's copyright law. He can sell his copy(at least for now) but can not make copies to sell. But the bottomline is he own's what is on his disc. If they put a master key list on the DVD, he should have every right to access it. All he did was post code on the internet, personally i would have loved to see him post DeCSS and/or his Itunes hack encrypted by by some scheme he patented. so if the industry were to go after him they'd be hard-pressed to find proof they could use in court.
Yes, but the US appeal system effectively lets one party haul the other into court hundreds - if not thousands in complex trials with lots of witnesses and evidence and public interest through endless appeals, motions, and appeals of motions, and even appeals of motions on motions to appeal motions. The system in Norway lets you haul your opponent into court TWICE. You try him once, then you appeal for a second hearing by more judges, and if you get the second hearing, and you still lose, cry.
> We've never slaughtered millions of our own people
Good point. We only slaughter subhuman non-whites, or non-Americans, and not usually by the millions. So clearly we're civilized.
The lack of a decent public defender system in the US makes it more or less essential to spend money on a private defense if at all possible, while you have very good chance of getting a top notch lawyer (from a private law firm) assigned to you as a public defender in Norway and may face much less financial problems as a result.
Combine that with MUCH longer sentences in the US, and things start getting interesting (Norway has a MAXIMUM sentence of 21 years + 10 years of reporting regularly to the police, a sentence that is only rarely handed down, and then usually to multiple murderers, and normally you would be eligible for, and get, parole after serving 2/3rds of the sentence).
In the US you would have been found guilty the under the DMCA the first time.
Also, the Norwegian government doesn't build offshore prisons and claim that all they have to do is bring prisoners there, and they won't be bound by _any_ law or treaty, whoohoo! No other civilised government either, come to think of it.
People arguing back and forth over what is insightful and what isn't Uhhhh..I think most people are in agreement that you, your original post and each of your posts since are a waste of fucking space, you wad. SIT DOWN, SHUT UP.
I'm glad you live there too.
It's an appeal that will revisit limited parts of the case, and where the decision can be appealed on matters of law to the supreme court, who, IF it decides to hear the case will have the final say.
Very different from full retrials, and quite limited both in number and scope.
Sorry, the murder-manslaughter thing was a a bad example. If I had more time, I'd find a reference for this, but I know for a fact that there is at least one case where there was a robbery/shooting where the attempted murder charge failed, so they charged the guy with larceny (or some other theft charge) and it stuck. Same incident. Two trials. That's really what I was getting at.
No person shall [..] be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law;
So, what about all those folks in Guantanamo bay?
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
The prosecutor in the DVD-Jon case had to get help from an expert judge to explain what an algorithm is. Here (Norwegian only). The newspaper where I first read this (The biggest in Norway) explains that an algorithm is a "mathematical concept". They used this article to demonstrate the the case was very technically complicated...
:)
Sadly, not all news are for nerds...
...since they enlarged.
I wonder where they got their University Diplomas?
Yes. It is also true in the US that you can be sued by different levels of government without infringing on double jepardy. If a state and county both have laws conserning murder then it is possible that you could be tried for the same murder twice -- once by the state and once by the county. This is legally possible because the law distinguishs federal, state, and local laws as different crimes. Luckly this does not happen often because in the US higher power delegate to lower powers which may also re-delegate their powers even lower. The lowest powers only have authority were it has not been taken by the powers above it. I would be willing to bet that there are some grey areas where two different levels of authority could claim juristiction.
IANAL
""See, this is the difference between the civlised, "innocent until proven guilty" nations and the authoritarian "guilty until proven innocent"""
You see, this has absolutely nothing to do with it. You're innocent until proven guilty in all countries discussed here. You don't need to prove your own innocence. In fact, OKOKRIM is struggling to find evidence against this guy and he just has to answer. Not the other way around.
As to your reference to the world war, I find it completely ridiculous. Did for instance Norway start a WW? (for your information: they were invaded by a country with a totalitarian regime, Germany, during WW2).
Yeah everyone keeps saying that, but not a single one of you so far has been able to say why an appeal is considered Double Jeopardy and why and appeal being considered Double Jeopardy is a Good Thing.
So why is it Double Jeopardy? Why is it wrong? Or is simply a case of it's-bad-because-it-is but no one can remember why it-is?
Yes, the prosecution can appeal a decision in the Norwegian court system. Note that this isn't a new trial, it's an appeals process. But I think we and the USA has a completely different understanding of how the justice system should work, and why double jeopardy should/shouldn't exist. I'll try to explain:
In the American system, it's all about finding the one trial that'll get them acquitted, be it that the jury that is so biased, incompetent, stupid, subjective, easily influenced, prejudicial, scared of sending innocents to jail or otherwise inept that they can't manage to find a man guilty even when the evidence should have been sufficient. Or through lack of experience on part of the judge and the prosecution, making the legal proceedings be of an inadequate quality.
I guess the reasoning is that if one jury is able to see reasonable doubt, there is reasonable doubt. In theory, it sounds like sound legal thinking. However, I can think of so many other reasons why one specific jury may find reasonable doubt where there is none. In the US, that seems to be acceptable, but I think most other places it'd be seen as a flaw, if the evidence was in fact sufficient (another matter altogether if the evidence is insufficient, both of us use "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt").
In Norway, and I might add in quite a few other countries, we instead realize that trials are not perfect, and that judgements may be too excessive. This can go both in favor as well as disfavor of the defendant, and in extremes leading to aquitting those that by the evidence should have been guilty, and also in some cases sentencing the innocent. In particular, I'm thinking about sentences that get overturned in a higher court, though technically you're not sentenced until the judgement is final.
Instead, we base our legal system on competence. A higher court, with more/better educated judges, a full jury, is considered to be more competent, and so a more accurate instrument of justice than a lower one. That is, that a higher court will make less incorrect decisions, putting more guilty in jail, and freeing more innocents.
Now ask yourself this: If you were checking if a product was inside a specification, would you use one fairly accurate measurement, or many less accurate ones and reject it if one is outside the acceptable limits? I think the Norwegian system works great, it's just that some laws are completely nutty and sentences are overall too low. But that's a completely different discussion...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"If you do the crime, you've gotta do the time."
The owls are not what they seem
In Europe you cannot be strapped to a gurney and executed by the state for any crime. Why aren't the Americans at our level of justice?
Reminds me of The Onion..God angerily reiterates 'Thou shalt not kill' rule
Really sad to see that a person can be tried, then retried again and again until the charges stick.
I'm glad I live in the USA where that cant happen.. um errr unless enough evidence is found to reopen the case.. or its for 'national security reasons' or or or...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are a few differences between the legal systems that are important to consider, though: In Norway you don't rack up the enormous expenses in lawyer costs. If you are accused of a crime, the State cover the costs for a lawyer of your choice. In civil suits, the losing party will often have to pay the winner's costs, so frivolous law suits by deep-pocketed corporations looking for a settlement are few and far between. Lawyers are also not allowed no-cure-no-pay fee structures, meaning that you don't get those idiotic class action suits.
That being said, the consensus among people with technical and legal background here in Norway is that Jon will get off, but that the case is being driven upwards in the court system precisely to get a thorough vetting. It should be noted that if Jon should be found guilty, he will face much more lenient sentencing than would be handed out in the States, and the MPAA/RIAA would not even get a hearing with speculations about millions of dollars lost because of DeCSS (and anyway, Jon could easily appeal to the Supreme Court.)
Incidentally, Okokrim has been roundly criticized for even bringing this suit by almost all commentators - and I have a sneaking suspicion they don't even believe in it themselves, and are seeking a precedent judgement so as to know where they can draw the line in the future.
IANAL, but I am not that worried - what we have here is a reasonably thorough process to settle a question of criminality of a legal question that is rather new. It will work itself out, probably with Jon being found innocent, setting a precedent which will be appealed to the Supreme court by Okokrim. And I think the Supreme court will refuse to hear the appeal, thus confirming the precedent.
Espen
He was like 14 or 15 when he released DeCSS and it wasn't even illegal in his country at the time.
Shouldn't you be off executing an innocent lower class black man for something or another, or is your attention all taken up by those "Illegal combatants" being held without trial or representation in Camp Delta at the moment?
DVD's are yet another example of how corporations think they can make more profit by Making Their Product Suck (MTPS). Usually this involves artificially restricting access to said product somehow.
Its quite good, and addresses alot of the FUD here.
this is totally stupid. it seems like anybody who tries to do something really new and cool ends up with litigation against them. I'm trying to make a nice open source MMORPG, but what happens when i release it and it eats business from eversmack, will i get sued?? If i were Johansen i'd have never dreamed of publishing anything i wrote ever again, id be too scared! i admire his bravery in the face of all this unfounded legal BS!!
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
That isn't quite true, as I understand it. As I recall, the feds can only pursue murder charges if the crime took place on federal property. You may be thinking of federal prosecution under Civil Rights law, which is a de facto end run around double jeopardy intended for retrying cases where regional juries refuse to convict obvious criminals (e.g. murdering civil rights workers in the south, cops beating the crap out of a drug addict on videotape). Whether this double jeopardy is morally justified, however, is a tough call. So far it hasn't been abused much, but the potential is there.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I cant find the email (I think it was posted to a debian list) but someone does a good job of putting a lot of dvd jon rumors to rest. Hes not a good guy, hes anti open source, anti linux (he may have changed his tune now that he has undue popularity here) he DIDNT write decss, someone from Germany did. He wasnt going to release it to anyone, his system was hacked, or he put it in a public share (on his windows box he didnt use linux) and it got out that way. Hopefully someone posts the e-mail Im talking about, because Im being so vauge on the details.
"If you ask me, there should be no point in a DVD at which you cannot skip ahead, fast forward, or hit menu to get out of the current section of the disc."
David Lynch setup the DVD version of Mulholland Drive almost exactly like this. You could fastworward it in "seek" mode, but hardly any other mode. It didn't have any chapters to skip to and from.
IIRC, he disapproves of the chaptering system as he wants the audience to see the film as a whole and not be able to skip around... I haven't seen his other movies on DVD format, but I've heard that he did this with many other movies as well.
Not quite so: Most people tend to forget that the state/federal levels of government are seperate and that aquittal at state level does not prevent the same charge [where 'equal' charges exist] being taken up at the federal level. Serving military personell can fall into this more easily than most....
Control, thats what its about. By making DeCSS a violation of the DMCA they can control what you do with what you own in a way thats profitable to them. Next they put a broadcast flag on commercials, and makes it impossible to fast forward via tivo style. Write a hack? Go to federal prison. Use the hack? Go to federal prison. Discuss the hack? Go to federal prison. It will soon be a crime to act in an unprofitable manner. Control, thats why.
Step 3: Profit!
Correct. Instead, in the US, the prosecution has to instead start over with a new charge, in a different court.
For example, some red-neck jury won't convict that pesky murderer in state court? Go to federal court and go for violating the dead person's civil rights, instead.
Based on what people have posted here of the procedure in Norway, it is not double-jeopardy of the kind that is not supposed to happen here in the US. It sounds like they have a finite, definite procedure that includes one trial, and one appeal by the loser that does not require any new evidence.
In theory, yes that could happen. In reality, the DA would simply try to nail you on some bullshit charge
Soooo, what you're saying is that the system is really the same only you have bullshit charges instead of appeals??
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
As I recall, when he won the initial case, the prosecutors were saying that they were definitely going to appeal, because he'd admitted to doing what they said he did, and they had thought it was not illegal. In order to have the law interpretted for them, they would have to bring the case to a higher court to get an explanation, so that they would know who to prosecute in the future.
IIRC, he is in less danger in the appeal than he was in the initial case, and there's not expected to be any new arguments or evidence, which means that his trial will be much easier.
Amnesty's file on the USA is growing fatter by the day. The USA has 974 documents on file (http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index). (For comparison, there are 247 documents on file for the UK, 8 on Norway and 3 on the Vatican.)
Guantanamo Bay is on the list of priorities.
Actually, in the U.S., the prosecution can sometimes get a new trial after a mistrial. It's even possible sometimes for new, separate charges to be brought in regards to the same acts if there is sufficient new evidence. That's not double jeopardy, because it's not the same charges. The standards which allow an appeal by the prosecution are bound to vary from country to country, and differe from U.S. state to U.S. state in regards to state trials.
Also, it's not considered double jeopardy to be tried by more than one level of government in the U.S., so a state can try and sentence omeone on state charges for the same acts which the U.S. federal government tries and sentences someone. The federal government can't retry the same charges, and the state can't retry the same charges. But they can both try separate charges arising from the same event.
Also, an appeal in the U.S., whether brought by prosecution or defense, is not a new trial. An appeal can overturn a verdict based on procedure of the government, but it is often only a step to allow a new trial in which the defense can get a fairer trial or present new evidence or new testimony. An appeals court in the U.S. doesn't hear the original evidence of the original case in any manner -- only about the manner in which the original case may not have been sufficiently fair and just.
If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be able to copy the massive amounts of DVDs that I rent from Netflix and Blockbuster.
We need more people like this guy who aren't afraid to stick their middle fingers up to corporate morons and who aren't afraid to fight stupid-assed laws.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
"...we've never started World Wars..."
Dude! Don't jinx us!
And still we in denmark have to pay to educate ;-)
all you doctors
the parent of this post is talking about jury nullification, which you can read about in depth at:
Fully Informed Jury Association
Science: The original open source.
it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
Sometimes, a movie is a derivative work of an existing copyrighted work, and the owner of copyright in the underlying work is willing to license it only on different terms in different territories.
Hmmm, those words granting limited power to the federal government and further protecting against state government excesses may be ignored when dealing with non-citizens or U.S. citizens abroad.
They are enemy combantants. Most of the time they would be killed on the battlefield. For the grace of Allah, they were allowed to live -- usually with better food and shelter than they were acustomed to.
During the Korean war, Vietnam, etc. most us soldiers were treated much worse -- even after the war was over. THe war on terriorism is not yet completed...
Uh, you are telling me that after 14 years a serial killer will just be let out of prison? I was with you up till that point. Sure they have more murders in the US, but once they are caught and convicted I am not too worried about them anymore.
If you want to change the law in a democracy, it is better to vote for the parties that will change the stupid law, instead of "democracy by suing" or "democracy by harrasing cops not winning cases in court". As far as I know, Prohibition never caught on in Europe, probably since it is a very totaliterian way of dealing with alcohol problems. Also, note that in Europe there are many different law systems and traditions, most owing something to the ancient Roman law system but with slightly different developments. And many European countries have juries like a "civilised country" like the US.
Are you on crack? I think you should find out a bit more about Scandinavia before claiming that people are "guilty until proven innocent" there. And seperating Britain from the rest of Europe and claiming that the two, Britain and the US, are the shining example of a trusted law system and the ideal democracy is a bit of the rocks.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Most civilized countries have also abolished the death penalty.
Dear Lord. Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to get someone actually killed once they've been sentenced to the death penalty? It tends to take a MINIMUM of 10 years before the sentence is carried out. It's not uncommon for it to 20 or so years or for the convict to die of natural causes first. Also, the death penalty is not given unless there is incontrovertible proof that the convict used extreme prejudice when committing murder. Usually, they simply get life in prison (which invariably allows for parole).
Argue the death penalty all you want. It isn't a significant factor to these discussions.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
No, I'm not. BS charges will only carry weight if the public agrees with taking the criminal off the street. Otherwise, such charges would turn into a media circus that could result in the DA loosing his office. Here in the US, it's doubtful that the initial trial would have been pressed for very long due to public outrage. A secondary trial (say for his collection of MP3s or some-such) would be out of the question.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...I got locked out of my house and was arrested for breaking into my own home.
Until DMCA and it's counterparts elsewhere go away, we are all at the mercy of the **AA overlords and lackeys.
--
Free beer is nice, but I can speak more freely if I buy the beer.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
It's true that in the US someone who is acquitted cannot be subjected to an appeal. But also remember that in the US you need to be acquitted by all 12 jurors. A non-unanimous verdict results in a mistrial and a retrial.
Now how do you square that with the idea of "reasonable doubt". Surely if even 1 out of 12 people believes in the accused's innocent, there must be "reasonable doubt" as to his guilt.
Alos there are very good reasons to permit appeals/retrials against innocent verdicts in certain situations, for example if the jury has been bribed or threatened. In Britain, the government can also appeal on matters of law -- e.g. if the judge tells the jury "it's not murder to kill someone with a knife" and they acquit on that basis, the verdict is obviously unsafe.
You know, sometimes there are good arguments against absolutist interpretations of the US constitution. The double jeopardy rule is obviously useful to prevent persecution by the government against innocent people. But it has its limits, as in the examples above.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
A mistrial is not the same as being proven innocent. Once a jury finds you innocent, you can't be brought to trial for the same charges. Period.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That was simply a play on your misspelling of 'debt', nothing more =)
'Dept' is generally used as an abbreviation for 'department'.
So, who was at fault for the US civil war?
h tm
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.
That would be about a million dead I reakon...
So why is it Double Jeopardy? Why is it wrong? Or is simply a case of it's-bad-because-it-is but no one can remember why it-is?
A fair enough question. US law contains a very complete explanation behind the 5th amendment.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
At the time, Linux couldn't read movie DVD's, so it was kind of hard to start with code for Linux. It helps if the software can get to the movie if it's to decode it ...
Everybody can appeal, not only the state.
This is good, because often small-time courts will not be as professional or experienced and "fair", as the higher courts.
Will code a sig generator for food
I believe that's precedent, not law. Constitutional law prevents a retrial. I don't know the details of the case, but my guess is that the Supreme Court would find that the defendant failed to receive "a fair and impartial trial" which is a violation of *his* rights. The fact that he could land in prison after a retrial, or that he could find himself faced with tampering charges, is simply a side effect of holding up the "spirit of the law" within the "letter of the law".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Also, in most civilized countries loser pays all legal fees of the winner. Thus you can't bleed people to death with pointless lawsuits.
What an absolutely terrifying site. It's like they have data mined the planet and they have all the data on countries worth invading just there at their fingertips.
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Most Norwegians would consider the American requirement that evidence be aquired legally to be admissable really backwards. The only point in doing something that, by design lets culprits off the hook, is to discourage bad cops from being openly bad.
There is, however, proof that are inadmissible in Norway; those brought forth by provocation. Being lured to do something bad by under cover officers is not an offense, whether the officers were allowed to lure you or not.
To get a fair comparison between Norwegian and US law, you cannot simply point out one feature. Other laws and aspects of the legal system may render it pretty much irrelevant. E.g. the whole weird notion of going bankrupt paying for your own defense is rather foreign over here. Even in civil suits, that's a secondary concern.
What state was it that imposed a moratorium on the death penalty recently when the governor realised that there a huge number of clearly unsafe convictions?
The death penalty is wrong. period.
no taxation without representation!
Does this REALLY matter anymore? Are they still harping on the original code that Jon released? Did anyone bother to check that there are dozens of freeware applications, and ones that are commercially sold that are able to decrypt, de-macrovision, and de-regionize DVD's in one click?
The original DeCSS code that this bullshit is about isn't even a factor anymore. A better mousetrap has been built. Why bother this kid anymore? All this points out is that the Norwegian court system is owned by corporate interests, and the fools running it follow their whims like sheep.
-R
Most countries that don't have double jeopardy laws do have other safeguards to prevent abuse. Letting the prosecution pay all legal costs of the defendant for one.
They will not bring cases to trial wich are not ready because of that furhtermore judges do not take kindly to this sort of behaviour as it is deemed (rightly so) as an abuse of power.
A prosecutor who did this would not be a prosecutor or even a lawyer for very long. There are better safeguards against abuse than letting real criminals walk after one mistake by prosecutors.
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
Right, it was hard to start on Linux, so the obvious place to start would be a Visual Basic program with flashy animations.
Also, there's plenty of unencrypted DVDs, so it would have made perfect sense to get those playing on Linux first.
..."So shit like the O.J. Simpson trial can't happen here"
one solid saving grace. You can't be tried multiple times for the same offense. Everything else, particularly in the area of torts, is totally dicked.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Again another illeterate US citizen talking as if the rest of the world uses the horrible US judicial system
Not every country uses a jury system and has a courtroom that looks like farce rather than a judicial process.
The problem you see is not a problem in this case. First and foremost, the initial trial was NOT with a jury. This appeals trial is also without a jury, but a panel of judges. 1 judical judge and 2 expert judges, one suggested from either side. This appeal is brought forward by Norways professional prosecutors, not elected with a private agenda. The Judicial judge is a profiessional judge, not an elected judge with an agenda.
Over all, the judicial system is more fair to the average Joe in Norway than in the US. Besides, you don't even have to pay for your own defence, another plus since you don't have to be rich to fight in court. Also, in a civil lawsuite, you can never be awarded the amounts given in US courts. The max amount typically would be in the area of max $1 million. In this case, it would probably be a symbolic amount, probably around $10.000 tops. But, the case here is not about money, it is a criminal trial.
In the criminal case, he is looking at 6 months in prison at most. The longest sentence under Norwegian law, life, is actually 21 years.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
I think you're referring to Illinois. The problem was not wrongful deaths, it was a large number of death penalties being overturned. The governor wanted to know WHY so many wrongful convictions were occurring before he allowed the program to continue. I don't know if he has yet reinstated the program.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the product were extremely critical-- say, a life and death sort of thing like a pacemaker-- I would reject it if it failed even one test. And that would be good practice. You propose to retest it again and again until you get the result you want. Try explaining your rationale to the family of the the person who dies because you were trying to be "reasonable" in your testing, rather than stringent.
A higher court, with more/better educated judges
In the Norwegian system, it's possible to be acquitted by no less than two different courts before some third set of judges decides to jail you. If you believe that the third set is somehow "better" than the lower courts, then you're implicitly casting the other two sets of judges as wrong or even incompetent in those cases (perhaps because they're under-educated?) You're admitting that most of the legal decisions in your country are being made by judges who are periodically (nay, regularly) in error. That's a legal system I'd love to be subject to.
Inger Marie Sunde, the good aturney,
had a bit of a problem in court today when she didnt know what a algorithm was.
the mos central word in this case,m an she dont know what it mean.
We are realy loving her in norway.
here is a part of the propersition for punischment
"a pentium3 500MHz pc-case" ok she only want the case not the parts within
At least here, once acquitted of charges, those same charges CAN NEVER be brought again...
Only the defendant can appeal if convicted.
Corporatism != Free Market
"As for the specific case of double jeopardy, you are taking one tiny aspect of differences in the legal system"
It is _not_ a tiny aspect, it is one of the most crucial and fundamental differences between civilised "innocent until proven guilty" states and barbaric "guilty until proven innocent" states. Yes, America has seen abuses of power in the past, and yes, the lawyers have screwed up the legal system in many ways, but you still know that if you get acquitted you're acquitted, case over, never to be called back again.
As for letting serial killers out of jail after fourteen years, I guess you're lucky that Norway doesn't have many serial killers. That's an insane policy that utterly degrades the value of the life of a murder victim.
"In Europe you cannot be strapped to a gurney and executed by the state for any crime."
Why do you think that hard-working taxpayers should have their money stolen to keep that serial rapist and murderer in jail for the fourteen years until the Norwegian legal system apparently sets them free to rape and murder again?
... but while we're at it - they eventually Find Nemo.
Now that's some funny shit! You can now go back to your regularly scheduled program of cutting someone's hand off for stealing a loaf of bread, torturing innocent people to induce them to roll over on their family/friends/acquantance/total stranger, repressing half of the population because they lack a penis, or declaring war on the most powerful nation in the world today (ever?) because, even though they believe in God, it's not *your* God.
If you want to discuss facts (despite this being slashdot), the United States of America consistently treats it's POWs humanely, the same of which can't be said for some enemies (Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.)
America may not be the best country in the world, but it's a hell of a lot better than many out there. If it's so crappy, why would so many people risk death in a steel container/car trunk/Border Patrol to try get in?
thankyoudrivethru
That point extends well beyond movies, of course. It's something that is going to have to be worked out, sooner or later.
We in the US hate the RIAA and MPAA just as much as anyone else. They're only here because we didn't have the sense to oust them.
This is (unfortunately) true in Civil matters only between two parties (e.g. lawsuit), where the damages are only monetary, not incarceration. Multiple motions and appeals occur in criminal cases if the defendant is found guilty. Once the defendant is acquitted (innocent) of the charges, the appeals etc. cease.
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
Most Norwegians consider that a Good Thing, too.
What it seems to come down to is that Norwegians (and probably Europeans in general) seem to think it is possible to develop a system that can be based on absolute competence of the government. Americans hold no such belief, and prefer to err on the side of the individual.
(Caveat lector: what follows is generalisations about mr. Average Norwegian, which does not really exist)
Norwegians, like many Europeans, think that there are matters that must be dealt with by some authority recognised by the citizens. If peace and justice are to be had, we have to pass authority to somebody that every citizen submits himself to. In the end you have to trust somebody, and peaceful coexistence gets a lot easier when we implicitly agree on a trusted arbiter.
If we are to really trust the arbiter ("the law"), said arbiter must be backed by power. The citizens must trust that whatever the arbiter decides, goes. The citizens must also realise, and accept, that the arbiter is not omnipotent. There will be cases where the arbiter's rule is not followed, and enforcement fails. Wise citizens realise that anything near "total compliance" will require draconian measures, which are undesirable.
Norwegians realised, reluctantly, that relinquishing authority and power to some authorities in some nearby city could do good things for them. A few hundred years ago the murder rate in Norwegian cities (puny in size back then) was astounding, by current American standards. The abolition of side arms and a change in attitude towards settling disputes in court rather in physical fights changed that. During the 20th century the murder rate was about 1 per 100 000 per year.
To Americans touting greater freedom as something more important than a low murder rate, Europe can respond "been there, done that". We've struck our own balance. It's different.
You may ask what murder rates has to do with copyright infringement. Well, murder is the ultimate (ab)use of power. You simply off your opponent, once and for all. If the World was a less civilized place, the MPAA could have offed Jon Johansen. But it is not customary anymore in the US or Europe to settle economical matters that way. At least not officially.
Would it be OK to close the eyes and cover the ears? How about going out of the room for a pitstop or to fetch a glass of water?
Your answer is found here.
This is not my sig.
There is clearly a lot that is not pretty about the U.S. justice system, e.g. pleabargaining, Bush's suspension of Habeas Corpus in Guantanamo (although I doubt the Supreme Court will stand for it), sometimes incompetent public defenders, racist juries,... I could go on and on. However, the protection against double jeopardy is one of the good things. People keep including the sentence from the 5th amendment and doing their own legal interpretations of it. Just so everyone is on the same page, in the opinion of the Supreme Court: '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). There was a case recently in Thailand where a Dutchman was aquitted of a drug offense, then kept in prison for 5 years and then given a life sentence on appeal. That strikes me a manifestly unjust. It flabbergasts me that this is acceptable practice anywhere.
IANAL, but I believe that in general the case law holds that the US Constitution is only relavant for US Citizens and foreign nationals on US soil.
I agree with your point though, it is truly unfortunate that the US Constitution doesn't apply to every human in the world regardless of where they are located. The world would be a much better place if every single human being had unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", rather than the right to do what the autocrat du-jour forces them to do. (OK, technically, the quote is from the Declaration of Independance and not the Constitution, but it's more familiar than the preamble, "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...".)
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but there are two errors in this sentence. Firstly, "innocent" isn't a possible verdict. "Guilty" and "not guilty" are the possible verdicts (and "not guilty" != "innocent").
Secondly, the prosecutor certainly can appeal a "not guilty" verdict. They simply have to have grounds to appeal (e.g. the judge made an incorrect ruling during the trial, jury tampering, etc.). Likewise a defendant can appeal a "guilty" verdict only if they have grounds.
Absolutely positively fucked, especially when the prosecutor shows the courtroom what he's been up to in the meantime (the iTunes ripper).
Norway's one of those international countries though, so I sincerely doubt a Norwegian prison could be anything like the horrors of an American Federal or State prison... Whoopteedo.
[o]_O
I prefer the right to trial by a jury of my peers; with the right not to be tried twice for the same crime (by the same sovereign body); the right not to be charged with a crime when the act in question was legal at the time it was commited; the right not to be sentenced to cruel or unusual punishments; the right to a lawyer; the right to say nothing and not have it held against me; the right to face my acccusor; and every other right fought and died for by freedom loving English speaking persons of my heritage. I LOVE AMERICA.
Your being watched now mister!
Quack, quack.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. An aquittal in a criminal trial is final. And no judicial error, jury tampering, lying witness, bogus evidence, or new revelation can ever cause an aquittal to be reversed. Period.
What a prosecutor can appeal, however, is any decision or motion made prior to a verdict being rendered by a judge or jury. For example, if a judge drops a charge against a defendant, the prosecutor can appeal this decision to get the charge reinstated. The point here is that a dropped charge is not the same as an aquittal. Also, in the case of a civil matter, a plaintiff can appeal a judge's or jury's verdict.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
"OJ was tried in a crinimal court of law and found not guilty based on the evidence. HE was then pursued in a civil court of law and was found to be responsable for the deaths, regardless of not being guilty of the deaths. There is a difference, someone can be found responsable for something without actually doing it."
So, uh... how can you be "responsible" when another court says you weren't? You started strong, but never explained this logic. An intial "responsible" would be nothing less than murder (in this case).
I hate to say it, but this is EXACTLY double jeopardy. Ok, I don't hate to say it. The best argument for the civil trial should have been the criminal trial. The civil case should NOT exist (at least not under "responsible" argument).
If you go to court and are found INNOCENT, that means you DID NOT DO IT! There is no appeal by the prosecuter, there is no more bickering, you don't have a criminal record, you go home without the police escort. The jury has spoken and that is the final word.
Logically, you cannot be "responsible" for something you DID NOT DO! Uh... well, except in California, obviously.
So what you're REALLY saying is this: Appeals with judges and jurors are bad, but it's perfectly acceptable to convict someone on BS charges, if the public agrees with it? Why not skip the initial trial altogether and let the mob decide who's guilty and who's not?
This would be an accurate description of the state of affairs a few years ago. The 10 years of reporting to the police, or in some cases being held back in an institution or a prison, was called "sikring"; securing.
Now, the "sikring" concept is being replaced with "forvaring"; containment, which is unlimited. The legislators realised that it was impossible to determine how dangerous a person would be in 20 years, and that some people remained dangerous forever. Thus a "forvaring" sentence only specifies a minimum. After that, the inmate ("forvaring" is not considered a punishment; it's intention is not punitive) will be re-evaluated regularily. If the inmate is no longer considered dangerous, he can go. If not, he stays.
The definition of "dangerous" is, as far as I know, quite liberal. Think "potentially dangerous"
In the Norwegian system, it's possible to be acquitted by no less than two different courts before some third set of judges decides to jail you. (...) You're admitting that most of the legal decisions in your country are being made by judges who are periodically (nay, regularly) in error.
In the American system, it's possible to be found guilty by no less than two different courts before some third set of judges decides to acquit you. (...) You're admitting that most of the legal decisions in your country are being made by judges who are periodically (nay, regularly) in error.
That's a legal system I'd love to be subject to.
If you have found a legal system where the judges are not regularly in doubt, please inform the world. In many cases, it's word against word, circumstancial evidence, malice or accident, coincidence or cover-up, legal definitions, legal gray areas, conflicting laws and so on.
The question is simply, what kind of standards do you need to convict a man? In Norway, you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers in the highest court your case was trialed in. In the USA, you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers in every court up to and including the highest court your case was trialed in.
You can not pick which trial "counts", so you can't "retest it again and again until you get the result you want." Both sides may appeal, so if every loss was appealed, everything would end up at the highest court level (less the Supreme court that doesn't deal with questions of guilt, only constiutionality and penalty levels), where it would be final.
Any case that does not reach that level is in fact a sign that both sides found the judgement acceptable. And if you do reach the highest level, you get your fair and impartial trial there, with seasoned judges, a full jury and all that. How much more do you really expect?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Speak for yourself.
But I understand your point. It's a problem when, for example, an EFF rep such as Cory Doctrow is also a big shill for Disney, hawking pretty much every eye-candy schlockfest they produce.
Here on /., every fifth article swoons over some new MPAA-backed product, or is filled with links to Amazon.com, all while we're told of the evils of DRM, software patents, and other forms of control.
Yes, I know, a foolish consistency, etc.; but when do you take a stand? When it's easy and convenient?
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Its a Micky Mouse court under layered by freedom restricting laws that serve only corporate interests. If the MPAA stopped making films today for example it would not matter there would be people who would make better films for less, just as if Microsoft stopped what they were doing, (well,people already make better software for less). What public interest do laws like the DMCA serve? I've never seen a real criminal busted by the DMCA, in fact "arrested under DMCA" would probably boost my trust for someone (if i were an employer i would hire them on the spot)
Then theres the inability for the court members to fully understand the situation. All they see is "this law says you cant do this because it violates this companies IP security, this kid has broken the law" which is the same thing the politicians see. What the people in charge don't see or understand is the free speech issue and all they listen to are well trained, well articulated expensive company lawyers who know exactly how to sell the case just like the salesperson at that electronics store knows exactly how to sell your parents the wrong thing. Law and politics shouldn't be like that, otherwise the whole system is useless.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
OK, then why were the cops who were found not guilty of beating Rodney King retried and sent to prison after the LA riots?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
No, I'm saying that a charge that would normally be unenforceable, would be enforceable if there was public support. You have to understand that the US government system is designed with the concept that all systems are flawed. Because they are flawed, every system has checks and balances between the systems in order to make sure that no one system can fail or take control.
In this case, the justice system may fail in its zeal to protect the innocent. Thus the public will step in and allow justice to be served if needed. If justice is wrongly served, the public may make known their displeasure and force the proceedings to fail. But only if the public had a say in the first place. Serious crimes (such as murder) will still complete their trial no matter what the public thinks. However, public pressure can make sure that the proceedings are equitable to all parties.
And if the justice system STILL incorrectly returns results, and the executive branch of government disagrees, a pardon may be handed to the convicted.
It's not a perfect system, but it's not supposed to be a perfect system. It's a system that tries to balance all the factors in a fashion that maintains individual freedoms to the best of our abilities while still completing its task. Attempts to perfect the law result in uncorrectable failures such as this DeCSS case.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Anybody who has been engaged in a long drawn out legal case with many hearings knows that it is one of the worst things that can happen to anybody, and even if one is eventually successful it may take years to recover. What is happening in Guantanamo Bay is deplorable, but surely what is happening in this case is deplorable on a smaller scale. To me, both cases are like prosecuting a small scale cannabis seller because the guy running the big operation selling crack is too powerful and the police badly need a drugs bust for the statistics.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Dude, Nemo's mother dies??? Thanks for the preview..... would you mind summarizing the rest of the movie????
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
If you piss off some big corporation like the MPAA, it doesn't matter what the law is, you're toast. If Jon lived is found not guilty, the MPAA will just send someone to murder him.
To me, that is unacceptable, I BOUGHT the bloody thing, I should have control over it, not be forced to sit through studio pap that I don't want to watch.
Watching porn on my PS2. heh, heh, heh
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I seen to much SPAM I guess.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
I think we should settle this in a manner similar to that shown in the excellent Kirk Douglas movie; The Vikings. . .
Pin Hillary Rosen to a wall, with her long braids spread out.
The lawyers from the RIAA and Jon take turns throwing axes at her. If the RIAA hits Hillary's face, they were wrong. If Jon is able to sever her braids, without hitting her face, he not only wins the appeal, but gets to keep her as a serving wench.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Because they were brought up on different charges. The initial charges were "assault and battery" (which they were acquitted of), the later charges were "violation of civil rights" which they were found guilty of. Thus double-jeopardy was never violated.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Oh, and I should point out that only two of the four police officers were convicted of violating civil rights. The other two were cleared.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
such charges would turn into a media circus that could result in the DA loosing his office.
So the question is: if someone is guilty of murder, why wouldn't the public oust the DA for losing the case in the first place?
In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.
No, in Europe, the government would never attempt to pass something as onerous and puritan as prohibition. (Perhaps you can tell me where in the US it's legal to buy and smoke hash in public?)
So the question is: if someone is guilty of murder, why wouldn't the public oust the DA for losing the case in the first place?
Unless the DA used the Chewbacca prosecution, who would you be angry at? The DA or the sleazy lawyer who defended the murderer?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Here's a question for you:
Do Norwegian courts have the right to acquit, even in cases where it's clear that the accused has broken the "letter of the law" ?
In some countries I believe courts can do this, when they think the law is a bad one, unconstitutional, etc.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
Sure, he can appeal to the supreeme court. It migth turn down the apepal, but if it is a case of principal interest, and to set precedence, they might take it on. Still, it is not a "best in three" since it doesn't matter if both the lower courts went the same way.
Civilized countries don't execute minors, either.
Good point. We only slaughter subhuman non-whites, or non-Americans, and not usually by the millions. So clearly we're civilized.
what a load of crap.
we slaughter whites and americans too.
We're civilized because we feel really bad about it later (if anyone asks us).
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
He is off course neutral as a judge but at least he knows something about computers, crypto, Open Source/Free Software and Linux (probably a lot).
If you ask me; anyone that want their future decided by twelve/fourteen, possible 100% clueless, civil jury members rather than seven judges in a case like this is plain stupid.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Judges != government.
Clearly the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) are in the pocket of the US Motion Picture Association. No doubt looking forward to your Hollywood junkets, you corrupt bastards. Shouldn't you be solving real crime, rather than going after someone who has been acquitted and on good grounds. Hope your fellow Norweigians string you all up for treason. Traitors. Scum. Lets send them to a renamed suburb of Baghdad: "Hollywood", Iraq.
First, apparently in the US there are laws about giving legal advice; just to be on the safe side, I am not a lawyer, and the following is hardly sound legal advice!
Its important to seperate the appeals process from the concept of a retrial. Lets make sure we both understand eachother before we go around making brash claims about double jeopardy and UN Human Rights things. The appeals process is built to handle the very problems you've cited with juries and evidence. Very rarely are trials reheld, but its frequent that parts of the original trial are made invalid as part of the appeals process.
I'm not sure what you mean by needing to be proven guilty in every court trial up to the highest court. For starters, prosecution and defense can appeal the trial. An appeal is not a retrial. An appeal is a request for review of the process that led to judgement. Appeals can be denied if the higher court decides that the appeal is baseless. Secondly, you don't retry cases, at least in America, in a higher court. It goes straight back to the same level it started in.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Thats not the email I was talking about, but man +5 informative :)
This is Europe, silly, no 'innocent until proven guilty' there.
That's a joke - European justice looks pretty immaculate after you consider Guantanamo Bay
"It's better that 100 guilty men go free that one innocent man be wrongly convicted".
Double jepordy is just one of many things made to stack the odds in the favour of the defandant. Our beliefs generally hold (or at least held when the nation was founded) that it is a greater travesty to wrong innocent people than to not punish guilty people, and we have lots of laws to that effect.
It's also to stop harassment by the government. If they charge you with something, great, but once it's over it's OVER. They can't keep hounding you and dragging you back to court. They get better evidence later? Too bad, should have waited.
It's along the same lines as search warrants. If the police obtain evidence without a proper warrant, where one is required, that evidence will be excluded. This is true even if the evidence is proof positive of a henous crime. Well why? I mean if the evidence proves you did a crime, shouldn't you be punished? Well again, it's to stop harrassment and abuse of power. Means cops can't kick down door on fishing expidetions or just bust in to houses of people they don't like under the auspices of looking for evidence.
It's certianly not a perfect system, but I really like it. Though I hate it when a guilty man walks because of a technicality or a crafty defense lawyer, I'd rather see that than innocents going to jail all the time becuase the government jept trying shady tactics till it worked.
In the US you have a right to a trial in all cases. This is never waived, but the accused will plead guilty from time to time if he actually is guilty, the evidence against him is overwhelming, and it seems to him that conviction is certain. He will do this in the hopes of receiving a lighter sentence than otherwise. Occasionally, if a "plea-bargain" has been reached, he's sure to receive a lighter sentence. Plea-bargains happen when the evidence against is overwhelming but the prosecutors wish to avoid a trial for their own reasons -- for example, when their own resources are stretched thin. It's just a troll to call this "blackmail".
In the US, if a lower court finds the defendant innocent, the prosecution cannot appeal and a retrial cannot be brought unless some kind of misconduct can be proved, such as jury tampering. A defendant found guilty, on the other hand, can appeal to as many levels of the courts as there are if reasonable grounds can be found.
Now which system do you prefer?
And the brethren went away edified.
Absolutely, and that's the basis for much of the English legal system. We recognize that the courts are often wrong, and we choose to place our burden of protection on the individual-- in an attempt to insure that innocent people aren't wrongly convicted. It could be argued that it makes more sense to protect society-- as Norway does-- perhaps locking a few innocent people up in order to keep dangerous criminals off the street.
That's neither here nor there. My beef is not so much with your legal system, but rather with the naive and demonstrably false argument you chose to defend it. Specifically, your claim that the Norwegian appeals system can be justified by its attempt to provide a "better", "more competent" decision. Hell, you even went so far as to claim that the Norwegian system was more accurate than the English system. Therefore, am I wrong to point out that the judges in your "accurate" system often disagree with one another?
In your post above, you claim that the goal of your appeals system is to decide a case with the highest level of competence possible-- I disagree. If competence were the only reason different courts disagreed, the answer would be simple: get rid of the incompetent judges who disagreed with their more competent counterparts. In reality, the reason different courts disagree often has nothing to do with competence, it has to do with subjective decisions made by judges. There's absolutely no guarantee that a higher court will be more competent, though it sure does make us feel better to imagine that's the case.
By casting your appeals system as a search for competence (and nothing more), you exhibit an extremely naive and demonstrably false understanding of the judicial system. In many cases, your system simply allows one set of judges to impose their prejudices on any defendant in the country. The real difference between our systems is that the English system distributes part of the decision-making process, insuring that no one court has absolute power in all respects, or can ever abuse its power to imprison people.
Americans understand scarcasm? Oh yes, of course they do ;-)
As for not putting serial killers in jail because some redneck jury decided that it's a good thing he rid the world of some damn niggers, I guess you're lucky that you don't have many serial...no wait.
I'd prefer the European system any day; we're not executing minors and mentally ill and if some big-ass corp sues you you're not going bankrupt to pay a decent lawyer because the looser pays.
The next time before you're posting your oh so patriotic bs try to actually understand that there are different ways to do something and one's not necessarily worse than the other. There are many checks in effect to prevent simple government harrassment but that apparently doesn't interest you because you're not interested in some detail of the legal system but getting back the moral high ground the US threw away when Bush and his loonies came into power and you started behaving like a spoiled schoolyard bully. You should talk to Ashcroft about a nice "you have our legal system or you're with the terrorists" statement or something like that.
Now, I for my part will lean back and watch the troll moddings come in. HAND =)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
If you people actually read the original articles and reviews on this software, you will find that it does not crack or break the DRM at all.
You CANNOT listen to songs that you have not purchased/authorized.
So if your friend buys a song from iTunes and sends it to you, you CANNOT listen to it using this software.
All Jon's software does is dump the raw AAC data to disk AFTER it has been authorized for playback. So you can only remove the DRM from songs you have already purchased.
Also note, the produced raw AAC file is not packaged properly with the correct headers/frames etc, so 99% of players will probably choke on it.
You could already hijack the audio stream as it is being played using software, just not in AAC format until now. You could also burn the song and re-rip and encode, but that would lose quality.
Apple will most likely patch this hole or design flaw in QuickTime (that's where the problem is) in the next update anyway, breaking this hole or making it harder to expoit.
It's not a big deal at all.
What I find most galling about this case is that a European government (not in the EU, I know) is prosecuting one of its own citizens on behalf of US corporations. The Norwegian government (as well as the EU) should flatly refuse to bend its laws for American business interests. (Software patents, Euro-DMCA etc. ad nauseam)
Norwegian courts and the administration of justice
This is why Prohibition was finally ended in America: it simply became too difficult for the cops to get anyone convicted. In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.
... we've never started World Wars or slaughtered millions of our own people
Except that in Norway we did have a period of Prohibition. We don't anymore. The law was abolished.
Which is far better than an innocent person being persecuted by the government with repeated retrials
It is called "an appeal". There is a big difference, as many others has pointed in this discussion.
This is because America has always had military superiority over the countries it has attacked. The fact that you only attack opponents who are weaker than yourself (such as Iraq) is not be something you should be proud of.
{0}
What an absolutely terrifying site.
LOL! Virtually all of that information is standard encyclopedia data. That website is an excellent resource. I bookmarked it about two years ago.
It's like they have data mined the planet and they have all the data on countries worth invading just there at their fingertips.
Take a closer look, it's a full database of every country, including the US itself.
Hell, if that website terrifies you then you'd probably drop dead if you saw their REAL and INTERNAL databases. That website is plain old public stuff. I'm sure they intentionally leave that info a bit out-of-date. Their internal databases probably have full name and address info on entire populations, at least for first-world countries. That's easy, just snarf up drivers licence databases and phone books and more. They've got to have road maps of every city and village on the planet, and they can get on-demand high resolution satallite photos. And that's hardly scratching the surface.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If I recall correctly, Norwich is a city in the UK. Did you perhaps meant to say 'Norway'? :)
I'm just curious because it sounds a bit strange. For one, I've never heard about that.
Clever signature text goes here.
And boy do they burn money on the appeal. It's scheduled to take 12 days, and at the prosecution's current pace, it's going to take longer.
They are flying in witnesses from the USA this time. Phone conferencing didn't work out well enough last time, I gather, so now they get to see Norway at the Norwegian taxpayers' expense. Yay!
I sat through the second day of the trial, and it was utter boredom. Reading IRC logs and e-mails aloud, basically repeating the indisputable facts.The judge panel of 7, seven, looked bored most of the time. (three professional judges, two "expert" assistant judges and two "lay" judges)
And the prosecution has not brought forth anything new so far. Sigh
Yes, when Livid released a "final" player, Open Media System, the playback would go directly to the screen, Jon Johansen told. But it had no zone restriction. And since everybody could change the source code, it would be trivial to get it to save the content to disk.
"It's hard to keep secrets in the Linux community, then?" the prosecutor remarked. "But you had encrypted the content on your machine, hadn't you?" (Jon says yes) "and you think that is all OK?"
Found innocent of 'double murder' at the criminal trial....
Found guilty of two counts of 'wrongful death' at the civil trial....
Looks like a case of 'double jeopardy' thanks to 'legal hairsplitting' over the charges in both trials: murder == wrongful death
(same thing--different spellings).
Europeans never saw (alcohol) Prohibition because they didn't have the unique social environment of the American 191Xs. The 18th Amendment in 1919, Prohibition was the first flexing of feminist muscle here. Feminists were supported by other nannystaters for their own purposes, like the mafia, but the actual legislation was their product. Despite its repeal (21st Amendment, 1933, anniversary yesterday, hic), feminists were on a roll, securing women the right to vote in 1921 with the 20th Amendment. This drama wasn't played out in Europe, as the US served its traditional role as battleground and test market for freedom.
--
make install -not war
We will ignore the fact you resorted to implying all Americans are racists. We could even ignore that Norway is not without serial killers, and has even exported some (ie. Dennis Nilsen ). If you are merely going for a comparison of quantity here, be sure to keep in mind that Norway is a nation of 4.5 million, while the United States is a nation of 275.5 million. Any competent lawyer, anywhere in the world, would use all of this against you. Nothing you said after that would carry much weight with a jury. We will assume that, somehow, the jury or judge is still listening. Still listening so they will be able to hear this;
You made a really good point ( in my opinion ) that it is preferable to not execute minors and the mentally ill. The "big ass corp" example I am not so clear on. You say you don't have to worry if a "big ass corp" sues you because the loser pays. Well, what if a "big ass corp" sues you and you lose? What if you sue a "big ass corp" and the judge rules against you?
In any case, you argue that the european way is better ( is all of europe under the same set of laws? ), and then you tell the parent poster he should not say any system is better than another. Again, I'm sure you just lost the jury and or the judge on that one. Then you attack the original poster. His opinion is now all mindless "patriotic bs," and even if it was not the actions of George Bush somehow make the original poster's opinions worthless. Is this an example of european moderation, oldworld wisdom, or united europe progressiveness?
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
Sorry. I'm member of THASKG (or the Norwegian Dyslectic Organisation). This happens all the time.