andrel wrote:
> Yes and if that is all there is the accused should go free.

And they do. Look at the outrage over OJ Simpson going free.

> starts trying to make a case that the accused might not have liked the 
> person or that he has been violent before or... then you have past a 
> line. Then it is not about fact anymore but about how to play the jury.

I think that might be more "motivation".  As in, "why would he kill her?" 
Generally, if you rob someone, people don't ask "well, why would he take her 
money?"  But if you kill someone, the jury might say "I doubt he has any 
reason to do that."

BTW, fictional TV shows about court cases are much more exciting than the 
real thing. :-) Don't judge what happens based on what you see on american TV.

>> a mechanism in place for deciding which ones are trustworthy and which 
>> aren't, yes?
> 
> yes.

In the USA, that's the jury.

Note too that part of the point of the jury is to let the person go free in 
the face of bad laws that shouldn't be enforced anyway.

> But they are not the same organization, at least here (and are appointed 
> and not elected). But this is indeed the weak point for some countries.

You get the facts judged by the judge, yes? And doesn't the government pay 
the judge?

>> The standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the cop 
>> says you did it, and you say you didn't, and the cop can show that 
>> you've lied, 
> 
> If you lied about something relevant, I agree with you. If it is about 
> general lying I think I don't agree. That comes very soon too close to 
> character assassination.

No. You don't get to go into "general lying" in the courtroom. That's 
"Objection: relevance."

Now, sometimes it happens anyway, of course. Some lady gets raped, and the 
prosecution asks "what were you wearing at the time?" and tries to make a 
case that she was "asking for it."  But there are few situations where you 
can actually support that sort of thing, and of course the defense is going 
to cut that argument to shreds.

> I think normally they don't work against the people here, I think. I 
> don't have much experience but usually they try to find a reason not to 
> have to intervene.

That would be cool.

I recently read a sci-fi book where the situation in one particular city was 
such that when the cops caught you driving drunk, they gave you a ride home, 
because they really were working for you.

>> What, admitting you were speeding isn't evidence that you were 
>> speeding? That seems kind of odd to me.
> 
> Why? Why would you believe somebody like that? Too many instances of 
> people wrongly accusing themselves made this sort of evidence considered 
> very weak and not valid without other proof.

Uh, well, if the cop says you're speeding, and you agree, it really 
shouldn't even be an argument, as far as I'm concerned. :-)

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That would be useless, unless the cop did find drugs in the car. In 
>>> which case it is superfluous.
>>
>> Right. But it gives the cop a reason to look for the drugs. Without 
>> that, if he looks after you said you don't want him to, whatever he 
>> finds can't be shown to the jury.
> 
> true but tangential to the discussion.

Not tangential to the video, methinks. At least, if it's the one I'm 
thinking of. It wasn't you saying you had drugs that got you convicted. It 
was the cop finding the drugs.


>>> Sure. But in the opinion in this country in the case of the US it is 
>>> built into the system. If it happens here it generally is 
>>> investigated to see how it did happen and how to prevent it.
>>
>> Here too. That's what the whole pile of "appeals" is about.
> 
> it is not about appeals by persons, it is about investigation into the 
> system.

But that really is how the system gets fixed.  There's a trial, the person 
gets convicted, the person appeals, the next judge up says "No, and in the 
future, this shouldn't go this way."  The higher-up court makes a decision 
that's binding on that court and all courts they have under their control as 
to how to run the courts.  Who "investigates", and how do you find out it 
happened where you are?

Of course, the legislature can adjust the courts by making laws also.

Can you force someone to provide a password to decrypt files so you can show 
them to the jury? Well, that's being decided right now.

>>> The suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real 
>>> evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into 
>>> "evidence".
>>
>> Admitting you committed the crime is, indeed, evidence. How much they 
>> have to "twist" the words is something determined by the jury.
> 
> Who are not professionally trained to weight the evidence.

This is true. On the other hand, if the evidence isn't valid, the judge 
doesn't let the jury see it, either. In theory, at least. I think you're 
underestimating how savvy people are, too.

> possible suspect. He could hear him scream through the walls.

And again, that's the police and not the courts. The police here have been 
known to do all sorts of things they shouldn't.

> there is something wrong in education.

I think we call that "brainwashing" here. :-)  Every system has strengths 
and weaknesses, methinks.

-- 
   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