Talk:Pre-trial detention

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Remand (detention))

Sexist language[edit]

Use of sexist language needs to be corrected in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.128 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the duration of Maximum period a person may be detained without charge for Denmark from 3 days to 1 day, as the cited source is wrong. A person must be presented before a judge within 24 hours of arrest. The judge may choose to uphold the arrest for up to an additional 3 days, making it 4 days in total, before a charge must be presented. In either case "3 days" is wrong. 83.94.210.220 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the cited source is specifically in regard to terror-related detainment, which is not the focus of the article. 83.94.210.220 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to update link 2... it is/was dead. I tried to edit the references section directly... nothing to edit here... I edited the [2] in the text, replacing the url, changing the retrieval date, and deleting the dead link... but nothing seems to have changed as a result of my edits.

Looks like editing wikipedia is now exclusively the prerogative of the resident gangs of vandals.

Jfl (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Häktning[edit]

The section about the swedish "häktning" states that "there are two degrees of suspicion". Actually there's four degrees of suspicion in swedish law (see sv:Misstankegrad), but the prosecutor can only request "häktning" if a person has the higher or the lower degree. I believe that you can't "häkta" someone who's suspected by the lowest degree of suspicion, and the highest suspicion should lead to a trial. Ralphmeister (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphmeister, Thank you for your observations. Feel free to add the clarification to the article.--Nowa (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request for translation[edit]

The Haktning section is based entirely on foreign language sources, and no translation has been provided. This is a request for a human translation, per WP:NONENG. I've also tagged the Finnish section as unsourced. aprock (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading no eng - its when "quoting" not when using to support content or when when referencing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NONENG: When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. aprock (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will have a look but at lengthier discussions that position was rejected - you are confusing cite and quote - foreign citations are totally acceptable without translation, you have google translate like everyone else. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Human translations are preferred, WP:NONENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. I think this would be particularly the case in a jargon laden field like law. aprock (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are not "quotes"? and so don't require translating at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NONENG: When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. aprock (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot even understand English. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish law site had a link to unofficial English translations. I had some network problems, but give it a try! --LPfi (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why so much on Czech and so little on the US?[edit]

Why does the US/English article have so much on the Czech system and so little on the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding information on the Czech Republic as I worked on Randy Blythe's manslaughter charges. Anyone is welcome to add reliable information as regards US and/or other countries.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering that as well. I came here hoping to find a comparison of how long you can be held without charge in various countries. I understand India has a particularly long time under the Goonda act, while the UK recently increased the length to 28 days without charge. 91.85.35.46 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to compare to Sweden: There are no time limits in Sweden. Every now and then people hare detained for over a year without charge. In a few cases its been almost three years. One person was held in "häkte" for more than three years, but he was charged during that time. Also, "häkte" (remand prison) is much harsher than actual prison and you normaly stay there until the sentence is finale and you are transported to normal prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.121 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV re: grand juries[edit]

The following struck me as a violation of WP:SOURCE, and is not accurate. "US grand juries have been circumventing the 5th and 6th amendments by forcing immunity onto persons who have been subpoenaed to testify and when they refuse to testify, imprisoning them for contempt of court. This happened in October 2012 in the case of Leah-Lynn Plante and two other anarchists." Strictly speaking, granting immunity to an individual does not circumvent either amendment. The 5th and 6th amendments protect the rights of criminal defendants and those facing adverse government action. Granting immunity removes an individual from either category. The source seems to be a blog. I'm removing it, as it appears irrelevant and inaccurate. Let me know if I am off base on this; I am relatively new to Wikipedia. De Minimis Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Remand (detention). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

The terms "remand" and "pre-trial detention" both refer to when someone is detained between charge and trial. Between arrest and charge they are in "custody". I'm proposing the creation of a separate article for "police custody". Currently this redirects to detention (imprisonment). Anywikiuser (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preventive detention[edit]

What is the difference with the Preventive detention article? --Raresvent (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-trial_detention&oldid=1204899223"