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

andrel wrote:
> 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.

I think it's both. Of course, if you have photographic evidence of the crime 
and the person who took the picture testifies it represents what he saw, 
that's pretty good proof.

But what about "we found the dead person, and footprints nearby matched the 
shoes we found in the accused's closet, and the accused didn't go to work 
that day."  Someone has to decide if the evidence is conclusive.

Or, in the case I was in, we had to decide if the two police officers who 
claimed to have seen the guy breaking into the car and stealing the jacket 
out of it (said jacket having the name on the pocket that matched the car's 
owner's name and not the name of the man caught wearing it) were telling the 
truth. No, maybe not, but when the police catch you red-handed at something, 
what kind of evidence do you want?

If you discount the testimony of all eyewitnesses that aren't backed up by 
"hard evidence", you're going to convict very very few people. If you're 
willing to believe *some* witnesses, then you'd better have a mechanism in 
place for deciding which ones are trustworthy and which aren't, yes?

> 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.

Yep. Now you're trusting that the person who works for the same organization 
that incorrectly arrested you in the first place is trustworthy.

> 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.

I think he's exagerating. Of course things go wrong, but they're not 
supposed to. Of course, they go wrong in other countries too. I can't 
imagine how you do it thousands of times and never once make a mistake.

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, then 
it's a matter of getting the jury to believe the cop. If the accused can 
show the cop lied (which is happening more and more with cell phone cameras 
and such), they can get off.

>>> 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...

Sure. There needs to be some evidence presented.  If there are four people 
at the murder scene, then the defense says "there were four people there, 
and no reason not to doubt my client did it."

>>> 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?

Oh, one guy said "Maybe he found the coat in the doorway and was cold." 
There wasn't any reason, really. It just took a while.

> 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.

Sure. It would be nice if the police actually worked for the people here, 
rather than against them.

What the police do, and what the courts do, are two different things 
completely.

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

What, admitting you were speeding isn't evidence that you were speeding? 
That seems kind of odd to me.

In the state where I grew up, the cops had to present two forms of proof you 
are speeding. Admitting you're speeding can be one of them. The cop watching 
you speeding can be the other. If he just sees you and you STFU, he only has 
one form of proof.  (Another form can be radar gun, following you at the 
same speed, etc.)

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

True. I'm sure you get hassled more with less money and more racism.

>> 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?

Nothing. Just pointing out there's other places to avboid. :-)

-- 
   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 22:33, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

Chambers claimed that too many guilty people were not convicted *and* 
that most of the convicted people were there for petty offences, hence 
my question.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 24-3-2009 22:33, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Chambers claimed that too many guilty people were not convicted *and* 
> that most of the convicted people were there for petty offences, hence 
> my question.

I understand that. I don't think the second half of what he said logically 
follows from the first half or vice versa. Rephrasing my comment, I don't 
know what the ratio of guilty-to-convicted is for various types of crimes,
and I can't imagine how you'd even measure that, given that you don't know 
how many people are actually guilty. I don't think we lock up a whole lot of 
people who are innocent of petty offenses, and I don't think either of us 
meant to imply we thought that was the case.

-- 
   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 22:53, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I think it's both. Of course, if you have photographic evidence of the 
> crime and the person who took the picture testifies it represents what 
> he saw, that's pretty good proof.
> 
> But what about "we found the dead person, and footprints nearby matched 
> the shoes we found in the accused's closet, and the accused didn't go to 
> work that day."  Someone has to decide if the evidence is conclusive.

Yes and if that is all there is the accused should go free. Unless the 
shoes are either extremely uncommon or still have dirt on it that 
matches the scene of the crime and that happens to be unique. If anyone 
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.

> Or, in the case I was in, we had to decide if the two police officers 
> who claimed to have seen the guy breaking into the car and stealing the 
> jacket out of it (said jacket having the name on the pocket that matched 
> the car's owner's name and not the name of the man caught wearing it) 
> were telling the truth. No, maybe not, but when the police catch you 
> red-handed at something, what kind of evidence do you want?
> 
> If you discount the testimony of all eyewitnesses that aren't backed up 
> by "hard evidence", you're going to convict very very few people. If 
> you're willing to believe *some* witnesses, then you'd better have a 
> mechanism in place for deciding which ones are trustworthy and which 
> aren't, yes?

yes.

>> 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.
> 
> Yep. Now you're trusting that the person who works for the same 
> organization that incorrectly arrested you in the first place is 
> trustworthy.

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.

>> 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.
> 
> I think he's exagerating. Of course things go wrong, but they're not 
> supposed to. Of course, they go wrong in other countries too. I can't 
> imagine how you do it thousands of times and never once make a mistake.
> 
> 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.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Sure. It would be nice if the police actually worked for the people 
> here, rather than against them.

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.

> What the police do, and what the courts do, are two different things 
> completely.
> 
>> I think that won't hold up in court here as evidence.
> 
> 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.

> 
>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.
> 
> True. I'm sure you get hassled more with less money and more racism.
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Nothing. Just pointing out there's other places to avboid. :-)

Sure, I think I have visited some. I am glad nothing happened.
Remember a story of a friend whose backpack was stolen somewhere in such 
a place. He was still in the police station when they interviewed a 
possible suspect. He could hear him scream through the walls.

BTW I might not have repeated it here recently (or I might, memory even 
worse than it was when I was young), but I still think that if someone 
is not convinced it's own political and juridical system is better then 
that of another country, there is something wrong in education.

Post a reply to this message

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

On 3/24/2009 3:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> Chambers claimed that too many guilty people were not convicted

Not at all.  The people serving sentences in jail were most definitely 
convicted, or they would be released.

> that most of the convicted people were there for petty offences, hence
> my question.

Nor did I say "most."  I said "a large number."  I have no idea the 
ratio of petty convictions to violent convictions, for instance.  Even 
if you knew the ratio, it would be meaningless without also examining 
the ratio of petty crimes committed to violent crimes committed as well. 
  In other words, there may be more petty convictions because more petty 
crimes are committed, but I don't even know if there are more petty 
convictions or not.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message