The general principles of Law explained to children, and to others. Les principes généraux du Droit expliqués aux enfants et aux autres

(This file consists of several episodes)

The general principles of Law are based on not always written legal norms generally accepted and respected in so-called civilized nations.

You're probably wondering about what is a civilized nation?

Would you say that Hitler's Germany or Napoleon’s France were civilized nations, considering that they were ruled by two dictators and warmongers? And what about the United States, where a certain  president - George W. Bush – has recognized to support the principle of interrogation of  "terrorists" with the help of torture, a land where another president - the current one – always validated drone attacks in foreign countries against people who posed no threat to the United States?

And what about Pygmies, who do not torture nor practice any form of war, are they as civilized as the French and the Americans?

You may consider that the notion of ‘civilization’ is questionable, what led Albert Schweitzer to say that: "The Western civilization? It would be a good idea!".

Anyway, the so-called general principles of law are a bunch of standards considered binding on all so-called civilized nations. For that purpose I went for a little research on the Internet, and found an Australian site that provides us with a good summary. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW 

There are four important principles of the criminal law. These principles are set out briefly here and discussed more fully later in this topic and in Court - Criminal Matters.

Innocent until proven guilty

The basis of our system of criminal justice is that a person, although charged with an offence, is considered innocent until proved guilty of the offence. The magistrate, judge or jury, as the case may be, must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. Where there is a reasonable doubt, the person must be acquitted (that is, found to be not guilty of the offence).

Unfortunately, people sometimes think that a person who has been simply charged with an offence must therefore have committed the offence. The fact that a person has been charged does not mean that she or he is guilty, and any discussion of the charge should make it clear that at this stage the offence is only alleged. 

Burden of proof

The task of proving the guilt of a defendant falls on the prosecution - it is not up to the defendant to establish her or his innocence. This rule applies in all criminal trials, although sometimes is up to the defendant to give evidence of a certain point in the defence case. For example, in those offences which prohibit a certain act 'without reasonable excuse', the defendant must explain her or his excuse, although it is up to the prosecution to prove that the excuse is not reasonable. In some cases the burden of proof of a particular defence (such as insanity) may be on the defendant, but then the defence need only be proved on the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt, as the prosecution must do. 

Right to remain silent

While it is not entirely accurate to say that a person has a legal right to remain silent when questioned by the police, it is true to say that generally a person is not required to answer their questions. Legislation has created some exceptions to this rule. The main exception is that a police officer can request the name and address of a person found committing an offence, or who the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect has committed, or is about to commit, an offence or of a person who may be able to assist in the investigation of an offence or suspected offence [Summary Offences Act 1953 s.74A]. In these circumstances a person who refuses to give her or his name and address, or who gives a false name and address, commits an offence. Drivers of motor vehicles are also required to give their name and address, and that of the owner of the car, see : arrest and questioning. 

Double jeopardy

The principle of criminal law called the double jeopardy rule is that no person should be punished more than once for the same offence and that no person ought to be placed twice in jeopardy (at risk) of being convicted. This means that a person who has been charged, tried and acquitted cannot be charged again for the same matter. However, often a new trial is ordered where for example, an appeal court overturns a conviction or where the first trial resulted in a hung jury or a mistrial.

In the foregoing, one might add, concerning the rights of every citizen to a fair trial, some major principles that every citizen has the right to require from the judiciary or administrative authorities whom he may face. The most important of these principles are listed below:

- Prescription: after some time, it is generally accepted that the fault of an offender should be cleared in order to allow him or her to make amends. Only crimes against humanity are beyond any prescription.

- The neutrality of the judiciary: a judge / jury is not to side with one of the antagonists at a trial.

- The principle of contradiction: it is a consequence of the neutrality of the judiciary, which is tied to the parties by allowing each one to contest the claims of the opponent.

- Doubt always benefits the accused.

- During a criminal trial, the accused always has the last word.

- No one can be judge and party nor judge and expert at the same time.

- Any legal proceedings must observe a strict protocol embodied in a code of procedure to be scrupulously followed by the parties and the judge / jury.

Les principes généraux du droit sont un ensemble de normes juridiques pas toujours écrites mais généralement admises et respectées dans ce qu’on appelle des nations civilisées.

Vous allez sans doute me demander ce que c’est qu’une nation civilisée ?

L’Allemagne de Hitler ou la France de Napoléon, deux dictateurs capables de mener la guerre au monde entier, étaient-elles des nations civilisées ? Et les Etats-Unis, où un président – George W. Bush – approuvait le  principe des interrogatoires de « terroristes » avec recours à la torture, et où un autre président – l’actuel – valide des attaques de drones dans des pays étrangers, contre des gens qui ne menacent en rien les Etats-Unis, ce pays peut-il être qualifié de civilisé ?

Et les pygmées, qui ne pratiquent ni la torture, ni la guerre, sont-ils une nation civilisée ?

Vous voyez que la notion de civilisation est discutable, ce qui a fait dire à Albert Schweitzer : « La civilisation occidentale ? Ce serait une bonne idée ! ».

Je disais, donc, que les principes généraux du droit constituent un socle de normes considérées comme s’imposant à l’ensemble des nations dites civilisées. Et en effectuant une petite recherche sur l’Internet, j’ai déniché unce site australien qui nous en fournit un bon résumé.

PRINCIPES GÉNÉRAUX DU DROIT PÉNAL
Il ya quatre principes importants du droit pénal. Ces principes sont énoncés brièvement ici et discutés plus en détail ultérieurement dans cette rubrique et dans des sections consacrées aux affaires pénales.

 Innocent jusqu'à preuve du contraire
La base de notre système de justice pénale est que toute personne, bien qu’accusée d'une infraction, est présumée innocente jusqu'à ce que sa culpabilité soit démontrée. Le magistrat, juge ou jury, selon le cas, doit être convaincu hors de tout doute raisonnable que la personne est coupable. Lorsqu'il existe un doute raisonnable, la personne doit être acquittée (ce qui veut dire qu’elle sera jugée non coupable de l'infraction).

Malheureusement, les gens pensent parfois qu’une personne qui a simplement été accusée d'une infraction doit donc avoir commis ladite infraction. Le fait qu'une personne ait été accusée ne veut pas dire qu'il ou elle est coupable, et toute discussion sur l’inculpation doit indiquer clairement qu’à ce stade, l'infraction ne repose que sur des allégations.

 Charge de la preuve
La tâche de prouver la culpabilité d'un accusé incombe à l’accusation - ce n'est pas à la partie défenderesse d'établir son innocence. Cette règle s'applique à tous les procès criminels, même si la partie défenderesse peut parfois apporter la preuve de certains éléments lors de la procédure. Par exemple, dans les infractions qui interdisent un certain acte « sans excuse raisonnable », le défendeur doit pouvoir produire son excuse, même si c'est à l'accusation de prouver que l'excuse n'est pas raisonnable. Dans certains cas, la charge de la preuve d'une défense particulière (telle que la folie) peut incomber à l'accusé, mais la défense doit être établie selon la prépondérance des probabilités, pas au-delà de tout doute raisonnable, ce qui est à la charge de l’accusation.

 Droit de garder le silence
Même s'il n'est pas tout à fait exact de dire qu'une personne a légalement le droit de garder le silence lorsqu'elle est interrogée par la police, il est vrai de dire que, généralement, une personne n'est pas tenue de répondre à ces questions. La législation a créé quelques exceptions à cette règle. La principale exception est qu'un policier peut demander le nom et l'adresse d'une personne qui commet une infraction, ou si le policier a des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner que la personne a commis ou est sur le point de commettre une infraction ou si une personne peut être en mesure d'aider à l'enquête sur une infraction ou sur une infraction présumée. Dans ces circonstances, une personne qui refuse de donner son ou ses nom et adresse, ou qui donne un faux nom et une fausse adresse commet une infraction. Les conducteurs de véhicules à moteur sont également tenus de donner leurs nom et adresse, ainsi que ceux du propriétaire de la voiture.

 Double peine
Le principe du droit pénal appelle la règle de la double incrimination, c'est que nul ne doit être puni plus d'une fois pour la même infraction et que nul ne doit être placé deux fois face au  danger d'être condamné. Cela signifie qu'une personne qui a été accusée, jugée et acquittée ne peut être poursuivie de nouveau pour la même affaire. Cependant, souvent un nouveau procès est ordonné, ou par exemple une cour d'appel annule une déclaration de culpabilité ou lorsque un premier procès a débouché sur un désaccord du jury ou sur un déni de justice.

À tout ce qui précède, on pourrait ajouter, s’agissant des droits de tout citoyen à un jugement équitable, quelques principes majeurs que tout individu est en droit d’exiger des autorités et des institutions judiciaires ou administratives auxquels il pourrait être confronté. Le plus importants de ces principes figurent ci-dessous :

- la prescription : au bout d’un certain temps, il est généralement admis que la faute d’un contrevenant doit s’effacer de manière à permettre au fautif de s’amender. Seuls les crimes contre l’Humanité échappent à toute prescription.

- la neutralité de l’institution judiciaire : un juge/jury n’a pas à prendre parti pour l’un ou l’autre des deux camps antagonistes lors d’un procès.

- le principe du contradictoire : il découle de la neutralité de l’institution judiciaire, qui doit mettre les parties à égalité en permettant à chaque partie de contester les prétentions de l’adversaire.

- le doute profite toujours à l’accusé.

- lors d’un procès pénal, l’accusé a toujours le dernier mot.

- nul ne saurait être juge et partie, ni juge et expert.

- toute procédure juridictionnelle doit observer un protocole strict consigné dans un code de procédure à observer scrupuleusement par les parties et le juge/jury.

Entre nous, soyons honnêtes : avez-vous l'impression que, dans l'affaire USADA vs. Lance Armstrong, les principes généraux du droit énoncés plus haut aient été respectés ?

To be honest: do you feel that in the case USADA vs. Lance Armstrong, the general principles set out above have been met?

Of course, a lot of people would let me know that a series of procedures has been conducted in the United States between Lance Armstrong and USADA. On the website of that organization, we could read the following:

Following the dismissal of Mr. Armstrong’s lawsuit on Monday, August 20, 2012, by the federal court in Austin, Texas, Mr. Armstrong had until midnight on Thursday, August 23, to contest the evidence against him in a full evidentiary hearing with neutral arbitrators as provided by U.S. law.  However, when given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and with full knowledge of the consequences, Mr. Armstrong chose not to contest the fact that he engaged in doping violations from at least August 1, 1998 and participated in a conspiracy to cover up his actions. As a result of Mr. Armstrong’s decision, USADA is required under the applicable rules, including the World Anti-Doping Code under which he is accountable, to disqualify his competitive results and suspend him from all future competition.

My opinion is that what happened in the United States is one thing. The fact is that USADA means U.S. ... Of course, the most important victories of Lance Armstrong took place outside the United States, especially in the Tour de France, where U.S. ... ADA has got no jurisdiction.

And that is the very center of my argumentation because on USADA’s website it is stated:

Apparently we have a total cancellation of Armstrong's victories by USADA - without specifying that USADA is not responsible for the whole world because otherwise, why should they need any help from the International Cycling Union???? - throughout his career and for the future.

If USADA needed I.C.U. about the case, wasn’t it because the U.S. proceedings only concerned USADA’s geographical remit?

Once the file in Europe, we should have got a whole new trial: USADA vs. ARMSTRONG before the ICU.

And now let’s first identify who is who and who does what.

USADA: litigant as the accuser/prosecutor. This organization is supposed to have made investigations and is to provide the report to the “judge”. This is what is called in criminal law the indictment.

L. ARMSTRONG: litigant as the defendant, retired from professional cycling and suspected of doping by USADA.

UCI: the umpire between both parties. Expected to be impartial. It is supposed to receive the indictment, to notify it to the defendant and collect his arguments against the charge, after what the judge must decide independently on the basis of the evidence available to him or of his personal conviction.

And now this:

Le Monde, France, September 27, 2012:

The I.C.U. scolds the American Anti-Doping Agency...

The International Cycling Union expressed some concern about the time put by the American Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to provide them with the complete report concerning the Armstrong case..., (Armstrong was) sanctionned for doping in his country.  

The I.C.U. did not have any reason to suppose that such a file did not exist, but the repeated incapacity of the USADA to communicate its decision is for us a reason of concern.

Have you got it? The repeated incapacity of the USADA to communicate its decision...

Let me laugh: Ha! Ha! Ha!

Let's be honest: have you noticed any incapacity of the USADA to communicate its decision about Lance Armstrong?

The paper (Le Monde) noticed (september 29, 2012) also that Armstrong was sanctionned for doping in his country.

And now let me laugh again: Ha! Ha! Ha!

Because on August 24, 2012 (see the picture above) the whole world knew that Lance Armstrong had got lifetime ban and disqualification of competitive results, that means in the whole world!

Let's consider l'Équipe's (the paper belongs to the Tour de France's organisator) front page on the following day: August 25, 2012

"Armstrong. THE END"

"The ICU did not have any reason to suppose that such a file did not exist, but the repeated incapacity of the USADA to communicate its decision is for us a reason of concern."

Ha! Ha! Ha!

A propos, who decided what in that case?

Anyway, on USADA's website we can read this:

Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong, or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005.  Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.

  
HA! HA! HA!

In French we use to say: "C'est tout ?"; in German: "Ist es alles?"... "Have you got nothing more interesting to state, Miss or Mister Usada?".

How can you be as stupid as to say that "numerous witnesses provided evidence... based on personal knowledge...?". 

Let me just show you this: 

So, would you manage to recognize AT ONCE whether [= is there any EVIDENCE to you that] it is: a) chalk? b) cocain? c) heroin? d) sugar e) flour?
 
 

Next episode: Die STASI lässt grüssen! Greetings from the STASI! (former Staatssicherheit during the Eastern-Germany's communist regime)

USADA versus Lance ARMSTRONG: die STASI laesst gruessen. Greetings from the STASI

wikipedia

The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (IPA: [ˈʃtɑːziː]) (abbreviation German: Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of the German Democratic Republic or GDR (informally known as East Germany). The Stasi was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The Stasi motto was "Schild und Schwert der Partei" (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED). Now considered a criminal organisation, several Stasi officials were prosecuted for their crimes after 1990.

Tha STASI managed to "hire" one half of the GDR population in order to spy the other half.