Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 200
- 6
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Odd stuff I find interesting in the Swedish legal system:
We have something called "free sifting of evidence". This means courts can use evidence no matter how it was gathered; even if the police themselves commit crimes or had no reasonable suspicion whatsoever this is a separate matter and won't get the evidence "thrown out" or the like.
The Swedish "jury" (in district courts) consists of three lay judges appointed by the political parties (generally old people with nothing better to do). They can acquit the accused person if two of them disagree with the real judge, and convict if all three disagree. This almost never happens, so there's a longstanding debate to get rid of the entire system. It mostly results in somewhat regular scandals where the jury acquits people for really flimsy reasons when two of them happen to be ideologues or confused oddballs that never should have been appointed in the first place.
Defamation cases do not take the truth into account. It is e.g. illegal to write that somebody is a murderer if you're doing it to damage his reputation; that he actually happens to be recently convicted of first-degree murder is irrelevant. This absolutely gets weaponized by both the left and right; there's organizations on both sides of the culture war (e.g. "Näthatsgranskaren", "Förtalsombudsmannen"...) that specialize in more or less mass-reporting their enemies to the police when they see potentially "defamatory" stuff on the internet. It also had a pretty significant chilling effect around the time of the #metoo stuff, as women who wrote online about their experiences were slapped with significant fines if the person they wrote about was identifiable, regardless of the truth of the accusation.
Except for cases concerning freedom of expression, the government violating the constitution is not actually a crime and there is no official mechanism like having the supreme court address violations. The citizens are simply supposed to punish the government in the next general election.
This is a very interesting write up and I thank you for it.
Regarding the evidence standards in the first point - how is this not constantly abused by police?
Regarding the last point (which kind of answers my first question) - Again, it's just this insane reality that even the wealthiest European's (Scandi's) have long ago decided that at high standard of living is worth the wholesale trade of fundamental liberty.
It is the US that is the outlier with its strong exclusionary rule (so the rights of guilty criminals are well-protected) and strong qualified immunity (so the rights of innocent people are not). Most civil law countries have no exclusionary rule and no qualified immunity at all. Most Commonwealth countries have weaker exclusionary rules - for example Canada only excludes illegally-obtained evidence if admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
More options
Context Copy link
If a policeman commits a crime when looking for evidence he'll potentially be charged with misconduct (in addition to whatever else he did, like battery or burglary). A particularly egregious case from the top of my head was this one where the policeman was later convicted, fined, and fired.
I think the idea here is that if the government ignores the constitution, then any law you have to address it can just be ignored as well and it's up to the citizens to fix it by whatever means are necessary. The important thing here is if this actually works, or in practice results in constant low-level constitutional violations that people ignore; personally I don't think so. I helps a bit that the Swedish constitution isn't as hairy as the American one – the exception being freedom of expression where boundaries can be unclear / debated, which is indeed the parts that do have legal systems in place to decide that.
(Another fun legal thing I forgot to mention is that the king (or regent) is immune from prosecution. This question comes up from time to time as the king pretty frequently gets caught speeding and potentially drunk driving, but the police always has to just let him go.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link