On 23-3-2009 0:19, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
>> foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
>> too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted.
> 
> I'm not sure that's what he's saying there.  Indeed, I think there are 
> lots and lots of guilty people who get away with it.

You may have missed it, because you are an american too, as is the 
police officer that comes after him, but there is something vital 
missing in his talk: proof. At no point he is actually talking about 
proving guilty or proving innocent. It is about convincing the jury. 
That is more or less the difference between guilty until proven innocent 
and innocent until proven guilty.

> He's more saying "it can't help you to talk to the cops, because their 
> job is to arrest you, not judge you."  He's saying "If you *are* guilty, 
> stfu." He's saying "If you're not guilty, tell the judge, not the cop."

What he is saying is basically that if the police officer *thinks* you 
are guilty anything you say can and probably will be used to get you 
convicted. Unless you can definitely prove that you didn't do it. And if 
you can prove it, don't tell him (her) because he(she) can use that 
knowledge for a counter attack. My conclusion: What really happened is 
immaterial or at least not as important as the track record of the officer.

> I *do* think our system is open to abuse. But it's mostly abuse *before* 
> you get to the court room, methinks. It's cops arresting people without 
> a good reason, or because they don't like your attitude, or etc. I don't 
> think the judges or juries are particularly abusive.
> 
>> I think I prefer our system without a jury (and the somewhat related 
>> plea bargaining, something that is often quoted as a reason why you 
>> can not extradite a person to the US, because there is no guarantee 
>> that they will get a fair trial).
> 
> Welllll...  Depends what you mean by "fair trial."  The whole "fair" bit 
> has been going downhill here, with the "war on drugs" and the "war on 
> terror" and all that sort of stuff. And most of the unfairness in those 
> situations are when laws get passed to let people bypass the trials 
> altogether - confiscating "suspected" drug money, or claiming people are 
> "enemy combatants." And stuff like cops turning off video recorders 
> while they do things they shouldn't be doing.

The reasoning here is that because of the jury trial system and the way 
it is used, it is not sure if someone innocent can still get convicted. 
See the video for examples. Second, because that is not sure any 
prosecutor (or whatever they are called) can tell a suspect: 'Hey, I 
have enough evidence to get you convict. In which case you get at least 
5 years. So be smart, plead guilty and we arrange a nice 3 years 
sentence.' And he may even be right although you are completely 
innocent, you may get convicted if you're defence is not good enough. 
The net result is that innocent people are advised to plead guilty and 
hence never get a trial. So from a foreign point of view there is no 
guarantee that anybody extradited to the US will get a fair trial or 
even a trial at all. NB AFAIK this has not worked yet and people will be 
extradited to the US (under very strict restrictions on what will be 
allowed in the US trial), but it has been publicly debated several times 
here in the newspapers and in parliament. So if in any of such cases 
something happens, next time we will have a diplomatic row.

You are also right in assuming that the lack of moral standards in some 
of the previous governments has played a role in that discussion.

>> yet, IANAL.
> 
> Me neither. :-)

I know.

Post a reply to this message