andrel wrote:
> 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's what the "proof" is. How else are you going to evaluate evidence?

> That is more or less the difference between guilty until proven innocent 
> and innocent until proven guilty.

To be guilty (in a crime that can lead to jail), the prosecutor has to 
present enough evidence to the jury that all 12 people on the jury agree 
that there's no reasonable way to doubt you did it.  *Before* that, they 
have to have a Grand Jury, which figures out if there's even enough evidence 
to be worth presenting in front of a trial jury.

Does it misfire sometimes? Sure. Do the lawyers try to pick juries that will 
believe them before the process even starts? Sure. Do you get to waive your 
rights to a jury and instead have the judge decide? Sure.

> 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.

Right. Yes?

> Unless you can definitely prove that you didn't do it.

Um, no.

I was on a jury. The police in the unmarked car watch the man break the 
window of the car, reach in, take the jacket on the seat, put it on, and 
cross the street. It was hours of arguing with at least a couple of the 
people on the jury that he really was guilty.

> And if 
> you can prove it, don't tell him (her) because he(she) can use that 
> knowledge for a counter attack.

Yes. STFU.

> My conclusion: What really happened is 
> immaterial or at least not as important as the track record of the officer.

The officer still has to present evidence to the jury. If he says "I found 
drugs in his car", and he didn't, the defense lawyer will say "where are the 
drugs, then?"  If the officer says "He was doing 120MPH", the defense lawyer 
will say "Where's the print-out from the radar gun?"  If, on the other hand, 
you said "Sorry, officer, I know I was going too fast", or "Did you stop me 
because of the drugs in the car?" then you've given the cop the evidence he 
needs to give to the jury.

> 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. 

Of course they can. But I'm sure it happens where they don't have juries also.

> 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.

This is true, *if* he has evidence. If you're actually innocent, chances are 
the cops don't actually have any evidence, unless they plant it on you, 
which I'm sure happens other places too.

> The net result is that innocent people are advised to plead guilty and 
> hence never get a trial.

I think the completely-innocent *usually* don't wind up in trouble at all. I 
think it's getting more common that they do, or that it's getting more 
noticed due to the number of people with cell phones and video cameras these 
days.

The questions come up when you do something you thought was legal but isn't, 
or when you do something technically legal that someone powerful doesn't 
like (say, don't sleep with your congressman's wife), or you do something a 
little bit illegal (like, "I only had the illegal drugs for my own use") and 
then raise a stink about getting caught.  Or when it's a he-said-she-said 
sort of thing, like the guy says it was consensual and the woman says it 
wasn't.

 > 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.

I think it's also the case there's a lot of places where if you're foreign 
you're just screwed in the legal system too. :-)

> 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.

Yah. I think it's gone downhill here lately, but it's hard to say if that's 
just my awareness, an actual downhill, or whether it's just hitting the news 
more often when things go badly.

> Explain the large number of people in jail in the US? 

Crappy laws. That doesn't mean they weren't guilty. They were just guilty of 
breaking laws that probably shouldn't be laws in the first place. Don't 
confuse "your legal system sucks" with "innocent people often go to jail". 
:-)  *Harmless* guilty people often go to jail, I'll grant you. This video 
is about how to avoid that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message