Affidavit

Realistic laws!

Translation from Icelandic to English

a) An English translation

Free speech is a word we all know. Not everyone might know what this word includes, where it comes from or why it is as important as it actually testifies. Most Icelanders and other residents in the Western countries know that they live with free speech. But not everybody know how far free speech goes, it does not mean that each and everybody can express their thoughts as he or she wants, without any consequences. Therefore there are restrictions to free speech, even though they are not seeable or certain.

There is also a certain group in society who has more extensive protection to free speech. They regular free speech clause is in 73. article. cons. In addition to there is also to find clause 2. paragraph 49. article. there are specially listed congressmen. [“]


b) the original text in Icelandic

Tjáningarfrelsi er orð sem flestir þekkja. Ekki eru allir sem vita hvað felst í þessu orði, hvaðan það kemur og af hverju það er eins mikilvægt og raun ber vitni. Flestir Íslendingar og aðrir íbúar á Vesturlöndum vita að þeir búi við tjáningarfrelsi. En vita kannski ekki allir hversu langt tjáningarfrelsið nær, það þýðir ekki að hver og einn geti tjáð hugsanir sínar á þann veg sem honum/henni sýnist, án þess að orðið geti afleiðingar. Það eru sem sagt til mörk tjáningarfrelsis, þrátt fyrir að þau séu ekki sjáanleg eða ákveðin.

Það er síðan ákveðinn hópur í þjóðfélaginu sem býr yfir víðtækari vernd tjáningarfrelsis. Hið almenna tjáningarfrelsisákvæði er í 73. gr. stjskr., auk þess er þar einnig að finna ákvæði, 2. mgr. 49. gr. þar sérstaklega eru taldir upp þingmenn. [“]


c) one paragraph on why you chose the text.

There has been a lot of coverage of free speech lately in the news and I thought that this could be interesting. And it was!

Translation from English to Icelandic.

The Icelandic translation


Við hjá Greg Hill & Associates heyrum oft skjólstæðinga okkar spyrja út í það til dæmis ef þeir eru stoppaðir í umferðinni af lögreglunni og hún fer strax að spyrja þá spurninga en lögreglan gleymir að lesa upp fyrir þá rétt sinn. Skjólstæðingar okkar játa á sig brotið þrátt fyrir það. Spurning sem við fáum er oft:,,Þýðir þetta að málinu verður vísað frá?”

Svarið sem við gefum ávalt er: ,,Líklega ekki.” Spurningarnar sem fylgja í kjölfarið frá skjólstæðingum okkar eru yfirleit tengdar því að við sögðum ,,Líklega” þar sem það eru nokkrar kröfur áður en réttindi gilda undir Miranda v Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444. Sem dæmi, það þarf fyrst að fara í gæsluvarðhald, sem gerist ekki í vegakantinum þegar sá sakaði situr undir stýri talandi við lögregluna.

Í nýlegu máli hjá Johnathan Andrew Doody á móti Arizona(2011 DJDAR6323) ákvað dómstóll að óviðeigandi þegar sautján ára strákur viðurkenndi á sig brot eftir þrettán tíma af stanslausri yfirheyrslu. Doody hafði tvær athugasemdir, sú fyrri var að hæfni Miranda lagana og sú seinni var að hann játaði á sig brotið.



Dómstóllinn í Doody útskýrði að viðvaranir Miranda væru mikilvægar til að minnka áhættuna á neyddri játningu. Þar af leiðandi, sá ákærði verður að vera fullnægjandi og vita nákvmælega rétt sinn. Í Doody, til dæmis, lögregluþjónarnir tilkynntu honum að hann ætti rétt á lögfræðingi einungis ef hann hefði brotið einhver lög, svo tilkynning Miröndu voru ófullnægjandi. Lögregluþjónarnir sögðu líka að þessar viðvaranir væru aðeins formsatriði og þýddu í raun ekkert vegna þess, að lögregluþjónarnir fullvissuðu hann um að hann væri ekki grunaður.



The original text in English


We at Greg Hill & Associates often hear our clients comment that, for example during a traffic stop, that the police officer immediately started asking questions and the client confessed. The client will say that the police officer never advised the client of his or her rights. The question that usually follows is, “Does this mean my case will be dismissed?”


The answer we invariably give is “probably not.” The follow up question from the client focuses on the word “probably,” as there are several requirements before the rights apply under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444. For example, one must first be in custody, something that does not happen on the side of the road when one is sitting in one’s car speaking to a police.


In a recent Ninth Circuit case, Johnathan Andrew Doody v. Arizona (2011 DJDAR 6323) the court determined that the police were improper when a 17 year old confessed after thirteen hours of intensive questioning. Doody raised two issues: first, the adequacy of the Miranda warnings and two, the voluntariness of his confession.


The court in Doody explained that Miranda warnings were vital to reduce the risk of a coerced confession. Consequently, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights. In Doody, for example, the officers suggested that the right to an attorney only applied if one had committed a crime, so the Miranda warnings given were inadequate. The officers also suggested the warnings were mere formalities which were meaningless because, the officers assured him, he was not a suspect.


Link



http://www.greghillassociates.com/if-police-do-not-read-me-my-miranda-rights-dismissal.html


Paragraph on why I chose the text.


I chose this article because I thought it was interesting. I’ve heard a lot about these things on the internet and on TV shows and I was like “Is it like that?” Then I saw this article and had to find out. Could your case get dismissed if the police do not read you your rights? It just depends on the case.

Big image

Interview

a) A paragraph about why you chose this person- profile

Þórarinn Víkingur Grímsson. This particular person is my brother. He is studying law at HÍ (Háskóli Íslands) in Reykjavík. He is 25 years old and will finish his BS degree next spring. I chose this person of rather obvious reasons. And the main reason is that he is my brother and probably the only one I know that relates to law that I know I could interview.


b) Your questions in English


  1. Why do you want to become a lawyer?
  2. How long does it take in school to become a lawyer?
  3. Do you have to read as much as people think or even more?
  4. Why do you think you will succeed as a lawyer?
  5. What do you consider your greatest strengths?
  6. Use three words to describe yourself
  7. Do you prefer to work independently or with supervision?
  8. Do you work well under pressure?
  9. Do you find it hard to manage your time between law school and work?
  10. Where do you see yourself in 15 years?
  11. What do you think it takes to be successful as a lawyer?


c) A summary of interview - profile

Asked why he wants to be a lawyer he says he wants to be able to help people get their rights people often don’t know they actually have. He wants people who don’t have much between their hands to be able to access lawyers just as easily as rich people. That there is equality towards lawyers.

Víkingur says that it takes 3 years to BA degree and 5 years to a master’s degree. After 5 years you get a license to practice law.

Asked if he has to read as much as people think then he says it is even more than people think! The first semester the professors advise you to study at least 8 hours a day. When the tests get closer toy have to study up to 12 hours a day.

Why he thinks he can succeed as a lawyer he says he has the ambition it takes.

His greatest strength is his human communication.

Three words that describe himself. Discipline, ambition and regularity.

Asked if he prefers to work independently or with supervision. He says both! He works well independently just as under supervision.

He says that he works very well under pressure.

Asked if he finds it hard to manage his time between law school and work. He says that if you organize your time well it’s no problem.

In 15 years he sees himself as a working lawyer.

To become a good lawyer you have to be able to read between the lines, pay attention and be very bright. This is not something for, as he phrased it, “Santa Clauses” (Jólasveina/vitleysinga)

d) Picture of the person

Big image

Summary #1 from Ted.com

This video is about how to get people to enjoy work, work harder and feel good at work. Dan Ariely is telling us about what makes us want to put more in too our work. He gives a few examples: First one, he gives people 3 dollars to lego a lego guy. Then offers them to do it again and again but always of 30 cents less. He offers some people that but offered other people to build a lego guy for the same price but they always ripped it apart when it was finished. The people who didn’t got their lego guy ripped apart made 11 guys against only 7. He made few experiments like that one and people were always happier when they could see their work.

Also, IKEA, he said that like him self, he hates to put IKEA furnitures together but when he finishes to put them together he loves the furnitures more then the furnitures he bought which he had not have to put together.


I chose this video because it had an interesting title: “What makes us feel good about our work?” It’s a thing that always connects to every subject field.

That video connects my subject field on the ground of hard working. To be a lawyer you need to enjoy your work, want to work late, want a good result.


http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_what_makes_us_feel_good_about_our_work.html

Summary #2 from Ted.com

Got a meeting? Take a walk. This video might be short and you might think that it has no real value. It’s very interesting… In our society today we are sitting way too much and for way too long. Nilofer Merchant got the idea when someone invited her to meeting but couldn’t fit her into a conference meeting and said to her: “I’m walking my dog tomorrow, could you come?” And they had a meeting while walking, she said that it got her to get out of the box and think out of it. Fresh air will bring in fresh idea and fresh thinking.


I chose this video because I found the title interesting. Lawyers have many meetings at work and many of them might be stressing. Getting outside and getting fresh air while having a meeting might be a key factor in everyday work as a lawyer.


http://www.ted.com/talks/nilofer_merchant_got_a_meeting_take_a_walk.html

Law School… It Depends

A University of Virginia Law School professor said to a graduating class, “Three years ago, when asked a legal question, you could answer, in all honesty, ‘I don’t know.’ Now you can say with great authority, ‘It depends.’
Big image