Chambers wrote:
> Although I've pretty much come to hate humanity for the things they 
> do[1], this actually sounds like a believable scenario.

Yeah. Doesn't really matter, tho - you're still screwed. That's why STFU is 
always your best approach. :-)

-- 
   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

On 22-3-2009 20:10, Mike Hough wrote:
>> Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
>> prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
>> password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
>> accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for 
>> example.
> 
> Even in this case they are cutting a deal. Under no circumstances are you 
> compelled to provide information that could incriminate yourself. They may 
> promise not to prosecute but your ultimate dicision to waive your fifth 
> amendment rights depends on whether or not you believe they have evidence to 
> convict you.
> 
> However, if you give a statement under oath and they can prove that 
> statement is false they can get you for purjury. Also, any statement you 
> give can be used in court to prosecute you even if you are guilty of 
> nothing. That is why if they ask you for the password and you say nothing 
> they will have no evidence to prosecute. If they ask for the password and 
> you say you don't know what it is and they can prove you knew what it is, 
> they can use that in court as evidence of guilt.
> 
> I think this guy does a great job of explaining the fifth amenment
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 
> 
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 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).
I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the system here works, 
what they tell you, what they record and to what extend a police officer 
may lie or withhold information, but as far as I know there are not many 
reasons for an average person to have to know that before being the 
subject of an investigation. I may be wrong (but don't extrapolate any 
US experience to assume I am).

I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can prosecute 
a suspect for perjury. I vaguely remember that you can not even ask a 
first degree family member questions that may result in a conviction. 
yet, IANAL.

Post a reply to this message

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.

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."

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.

I think for normal everyday stuff - did you steal the car, did you shoot the 
boss - it's a pretty fair system.

> I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the system here works, 

Most people don't know how the system works here either. That's why people 
have to make a video saying "Hey, dumbass, the cop's job is to arrest you, 
and its the judge's job to run the trial."

> what they tell you, what they record and to what extend a police officer 
> may lie or withhold information, but as far as I know there are not many 
> reasons for an average person to have to know that before being the 
> subject of an investigation. I may be wrong (but don't extrapolate any 
> US experience to assume I am).

Yes. That's why the video is "STFU, and get a lawyer who knows the rules." 
If you can't afford the lawyer, the government will hire one for you. He'll 
be really busy, but you'll have a lawyer. :-)  Since you're guilty until 
proven innocent, you need to just STFU unless your lawyer thinks saying 
something will make things better.

> I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can prosecute 
> a suspect for perjury.

Here, it has to be something fairly important. If your testimony puts 
someone in jail, and a year later you admit you lied, something like that.

> I vaguely remember that you can not even ask a 
> first degree family member questions that may result in a conviction. 

I know here spouses are excluded (unless you're a "terrorist" or something).

> yet, IANAL.

Me neither. :-)

-- 
   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

On 3/22/2009 4:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Since you're
> guilty until proven innocent, you need to just STFU unless your lawyer
> thinks saying something will make things better.

I thought it was the other way around - that the basis of our legal 
system was "Innocent until proven guilty?"

> andrel wrote:
>> I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can
>> prosecute a suspect for perjury.
>
> Here, it has to be something fairly important. If your testimony puts
> someone in jail, and a year later you admit you lied, something like that.

I don't believe you can be prosecuted for perjury unless the testimony 
is tied to a criminal trial.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> I thought it was the other way around - that the basis of our legal 
> system was "Innocent until proven guilty?"

Sorry. Braino. You're right of course.

> I don't believe you can be prosecuted for perjury unless the testimony 
> is tied to a criminal trial.

Probably true. Hence my vague idea that it had to be something to do with 
putting people in jail. :-)

-- 
   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

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

On 3/23/2009 1:55 PM, andrel wrote:
> 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.

That's funny, because living here the impression is that it's not sure 
if someone guilty can get convicted either.

For the most part, it seems that our system errs on the side of letting 
guilty people go much more often then locking up innocents.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 23-3-2009 23:17, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/23/2009 1:55 PM, andrel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That's funny, because living here the impression is that it's not sure 
> if someone guilty can get convicted either.

That is as it should be. You can only convict if you can prove it. 
Whereas a system that cannot protect innocent people from being 
convicted is bad, very bad.

> For the most part, it seems that our system errs on the side of letting 
> guilty people go much more often then locking up innocents.

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

If you'd lived here I would suggest changing your newspaper. In the US 
it may take a little more.

Post a reply to this message

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

On 3/23/2009 3:34 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 23-3-2009 23:17, Chambers wrote:
>> For the most part, it seems that our system errs on the side of
>> letting guilty people go much more often then locking up innocents.
>
> Explain the large number of people in jail in the US?

That has more to do with asinine laws than guilt or innocence.  For 
instance, a large number of people in jail are short sentences for petty 
crimes.  Still more are for things like drug possession (not dealing). 
In these cases, the guilt is beyond question.  It's whether or not those 
crimes deserve prison sentences that is the subject of debate.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message