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

Chambers wrote:
> 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. 

Also, when the US publishes these numbers, it includes the innocent people 
in jail waiting for a trial. When some other countries publish their 
numbers, they only count convicted people.

Similarly with "child mortality": Some countries don't count it as "child 
mortality" if the child doesn't live past the first 24 hours or some such.

-- 
   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 24-3-2009 1:00, Darren New wrote:
> 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. 

No, it may be, it also may be just about proof by intimidation or any of 
those other forms of proof that you can find as lists on the internet. 
It should be about evidence that someone was some place and not about 
trying to suggest that the witness that says something that disproves 
you is unreliable. If you think that is a valid way to handle a case in 
a court, you are an American. ;)

> How else are you going to evaluate evidence?

Good question. We tend to have people trained to evaluate the evidence. 
I think that works here, but I know it fails in a lot of other places.

>> 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.

That's the theory, what the guy in the video actually says is that it 
does not work that way in practice. He is e.g talking about how to use 
something someone said in a way to discredit him. Take the example of 
someone saying that he did not like someone and turning that into a 
motive. Apparently (and I have to take his word for it) it can be enough 
for a conviction in the US combined with him not having an alibi etc. 
Nothing here is about verifiable material evidence. That is what struck me.

> 
> 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?

Nothing, apart from the fact that I was born in Amsterdam and still work 
there might just be enough to assume that I do use drugs and from there 
that I am the most likely person to sell them... Or that from the four 
persons that were possibly present at a murder scene the black guy is 
the most likely suspect. Or that the person that said sorry at some 
point after an accident must be the guilty party. Or...

>> 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.

Interesting, what were the reasons they gave for thinking he was not 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.

Note that I have never heard a similar advice concerning the Dutch 
police, nor have I ever heard a story even remotely similar to the 
examples given here.

>> 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",

I thank that won't hold up in court here as evidence.

> 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.

>> 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.

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.

> 
>> 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 suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real 
evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into "evidence".

>> 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.

I think you are probably right as long as you are middle class white. I 
have heard some stories that not everybody is that lucky.

> 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. :-)

Yeah, so what?

Post a reply to this message

On 24-3-2009 3:01, Chambers wrote:
> 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.
> 
So the people not getting to jail are IYO predominantly for more serious 
crimes? Like fraud and organized crime in stead of drugs and shoplifting?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> So the people not getting to jail are IYO predominantly for more serious 
> crimes? Like fraud and organized crime in stead of drugs and shoplifting?

I haven't any idea what the ration between "serious" and "minor" crime 
conviction rates are (and how would you be able to give a realistic 
assessment of that?), but I don't think that's the implication here. We lock 
up too many people because too many people are guilty, not because there's 
too many innocent people being locked up.

-- 
   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