1995-11-17 - Re: COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13

Header Data

From: hallam@w3.org
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6aab6f4f0861718aabcdcf03d9f2b48ed716c22db2d22f670195cceea55eff53
Message ID: <9511171800.AA07897@zorch.w3.org>
Reply To: <199511171546.KAA17869@tinman.dev.prodigy.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-17 18:23:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 02:23:12 +0800

Raw message

From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 02:23:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13
In-Reply-To: <199511171546.KAA17869@tinman.dev.prodigy.com>
Message-ID: <9511171800.AA07897@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Forgive me if this point has already been raised, but couldn't an 
>objection to such laws be based on the protection against 
>self-incrimination? 

There is no such right in most (if not all) european countries. In
France there is not even the presumption of innocence.

The British Conservatives have recently passed a criminal justice
Bill which abolishes the right to silence and most other protections
for the defendant. They are busy writing another.

That is not to say US politicians are any better. Congress is busily 
rolling back on all the protections they can. Got to fill those jails
somehow you know.

	Phill







Thread