Therumancer said:
When it comes to Canada (and other nations) with legalized prostitution, one has to consider that even the most free of these nations do not have the same level of freedoms and protections as the USA which makes things somewhat easier.
Come again? America has more laws and regulation than any other country in the World. You could argue that these laws are potentially protecting freedoms, rather than reducing them, but then again, America also has the largest prison population in the World. Granted, there are probably many social, cultural and economic reasons for this being the case, so it would be unjust for me to attribute America's crime problems entirely to its legal system.
America does not necessarily have more freedoms and protection than a lot of countries. It is far too complicated to try and measure individual countries for this kind of thing (though there are surveyors who try). Just citing individual examples like "Canadian blank warrants" will not do. As it happens, the one legal issue that bothers me the most in my own country (the UK) is libel. In the UK, libel laws are extremely strict - to the point where celebrities (the most recent notable case being Tiger Woods) can hang out in the UK just to prevent more severely negative press. Of all the legal issues in the UK, I think this is the most serious, as it runs the risk of crippling freedom of the press.
It's also noteworthy that the US's system which FUNCTIONS on a principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal matters is very unusual. It gives criminals a lot more rights. and ties the hands of the goverment a lot more, than most other nations including very free ones that are similar to the US. Some other nations use the same terminology but in practice typically operate more on a system relying on a "preponderance of evidence" (which is a lower standard in the US used for civil matters). That is to say that if it's very likely someone is guilty in other nations like Canada he will be convited. In the US simply being very likely is not enough.
As far as I know, UK courts are required to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" and that juries must be "sure of guilt". Returning to the nature of "freedoms and protections", one could argue that granting courts the ability to convict someone based on the preponderance of evidence allows for more convictions of likely criminals, thus taking dangerous criminals of the street. One has to balance this with the potential danger of a miscarriage of justice (i.e. convicting someone who looks like the likely perpertrator, when in fact they are innocent and just in the wrong place at the wrong time). Does the system protect enough people to outweigh the potential damage to freedom? The issue is too complex to discus within the scope of this kind of thread.
However overall, I think those systems are a lot more likely to throw innocent people in jail. The basic attitude in the US being that we'd rather let a guilty person go free, than see an innocent punished. In Canada and the UK they tend to be content with simply making sure they get it right the majority of the time.
That comes across as a gross generalisation, and as far as I know, isn't the slightest bit accurate.