Makes sense to me Cindy because I agree.

I think that Buffy's development has been very logical, but that doesn't mean it's been as fun to watch.

Yes to this, but also I just don't think Buffy has been written very well lately.

Yes to this, but also I just don't think Buffy has been written very well lately.

Yeah, that's part of it too--I find myself watching and thinking, "I see what they're doing here, and it makes sense, but I wonder if it couldn't have been done better." The show doesn't seem as tightly put together as it did up through season 4. Maybe because Joss has been elsewhere a lot? Or have the characters just evolved to a place where the writers are haveing trouble writing as well for them?

"You have the right to remains silent, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention anything you later rely on in court."

Oh my lord, that is appalling.

I have a hard time distinguishing between my take on the character and the actress, especially with the current season. I know SMG has the chops, we've seen it before, so determining what is the character going in a direction I might not see and what is the actress failing to convey is difficult. Vague much? Most of my concrete thoughts on this issue have to do with the current season, so I'm having trouble expressing my meaning without veering into dangerous territory.

Oh my lord, that is appalling

Yes. We have terrible problems with this kind of thing over here - not having a constitution makes it relatively easy to nibble away at civil rights.

Yes. We have terrible problems with this kind of thing over here - not having a constitution makes it relatively easy to nibble away at civil rights.

Oh, it's too damn easy over here too. Especially with a bunch of Supreme Court weenies who think our current protections are far more than what the Consitution means is necessary.

They are going to hear a case in which evidence found before Mirandized is legally admissable, just not your actual statement which allowed said evidence to be found.

A truly despicable bit of legal wordplay.

I've always wondered about Miranda ("Anything you say can and will be used against you") -- WILL? No it won't I bet. Just odd.

I'm sad to see that the UK version is even less about the accused. Interestingly, this was brought to mind from watching an episode of Waking The Dead where they did something patently illegal (and would have gotten busted if this were CSI or L&O) as part of their investigation. But the dude got read his rights.

Waking the Dead is pretty damn good, isn't it? And they're always doing illegal stuff.

Waking the Dead is pretty damn good, isn't it?

Love it. It's like CSI without the glam. And with more protective clothing. And the sexual tension, though the platonic interactions are also great.

There's different wording in Scotland, Scots Law being different from English.

One of the parts I always liked about Homicide was that the detectives could and did lie to suspects, pull all sorts of shock and intimidation techniques, be annoying or mean or ghastly -- anything that did not physically harm the suspect for a confession. Sometimes even after the suspect had asked for a lawyer, the detective would be like, "Do you really want a lawyer mucking all this up? I'm sure you and I can work it out."

It was all in the way of proving the thesis that 99.99% of the time, criminals are truly dumb, and conversely that people will go along with a person in authority for a really long way before objecting. There was a first season episode (I think) where, to prove a point, Pembleton induced a person he knew to be innocent to confess to a cop-killing, purely by force of personality and rhetoric. (And then tore up the confession; he was just proving out his own cynicism to his boss.)

I notice the UK version of Miranda doesn't even mention asking for a legal representative (barrister? solicitor? Those guys who wear the funny wigs).