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

On 3/24/2009 1:55 PM, andrel wrote:
> 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.

What, you mean professional jurors?  One of the basic tenets of our 
judicial system is a review by a jury of your peers, rather than 
professional jurors.

< re: innocent people getting convicted >
> 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.

At this point, however, you're leaving it to the courts to ensure that 
innocent people do not get convicted.  Here, we leave it to the public, 
in the form of a public jury.

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

Do you think personal testimony is not evidence?

You can blame the British for the one... our tradition of "hearing" 
evidence comes from the English legal system :)

> 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.

Now you're conflating the issue with racial prejudices.  The two issues 
are separate; if you're the victim of racism, you could be screwed no 
matter what the "main" subject is, be it lending practices, police 
investigations, or just getting a good meal at a restaurant.

Let's get back to the judicial system.


Anyway, as I said before, the main issue here is that we leave such 
determinations to a public jury.  They need to be convinced that there 
is no "reasonable" doubt of guilt.  The problem with leaving such 
determinations to the courts (or professional jurors, which amounts to 
the same thing because they become a part of the system) is that the 
courts themselves may be corrupted.

Our current system was put in place largely as a reaction to the abuse 
that the public suffered from the judicial system at the time.  Innocent 
people were being arrested but never charged with crimes, or convicted 
with little or no evidence.  In many cases, the authorities flat out 
lied about evidence in order to convict the men they were after.

So we threw them out, and started our own system that was controlled by 
public review.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:40:00 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Then it
> is not about fact anymore but about how to play the jury.

The jury is responsible for determining the facts in the case, so the 
presentation to the jury is very important for both the prosecution and 
the defense.

The only exception to that that I'm aware of in the US is if the 
defendant asks for a bench trial (meaning the judge plays the role of the 
jury).  In the appeals process, bench trials are standard operating 
procedure, again as I understand it - because the judge is responsible 
for deciding if the lower court made a reversible error.

But in normal circumstances in the US, the judge interprets the law for 
the jury, the jury determines the facts, and decides if the facts support 
the charge based on the law or laws that the defendant is accused of 
breaking were in fact broken.

The prosecution and the defense put together a packet for the jury, 
though, that outlines different perspectives on the law.  The packets 
from both sides are given to the jury to read and often you can't tell 
which comes from who (they're not identified in my experience).

For example, the jury I sat on was for a drug case; the defendant was 
accused of drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.  In the 
packet that the jury received, there was a case history where the 
defendant was acquitted of possession of drug paraphernalia because the 
prosecution didn't prove intent to use.  According to the judge (whom I 
spoke to about this after the case was over), the inclusion of this 
particular case history is common from defense attorneys because it could 
be seen to set a precedent, even though the law clearly states that it's 
possession and not the "intent to use" that defines whether the accused 
is guilty of that particular crime or not.

In this particular case, ironically, the charges that were brought were 
not what the prosecution (or the cops) were hoping for; the cops had been 
led to believe that they had manufacturing equipment in the apartment for 
crystal meth, but they didn't find any.

I think it's a shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually 
quite fascinating, at least I think so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-3-2009 4:35, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/24/2009 1:55 PM, andrel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> What, you mean professional jurors?  

No the judge.

> One of the basic tenets of our 
> judicial system is a review by a jury of your peers, rather than 
> professional jurors.

Indeed that is the main weakness of it ;) See my remark to Darren on why 
everybody feels their own system is the best.

> 
>> The suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real
>> evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into
>> "evidence".
> 
> Do you think personal testimony is not evidence?

As the only source? No. Only if it contains verifiable facts.

>> 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.
> 
> Now you're conflating the issue with racial prejudices. 

Not really. I was pointing out that as soon as you get public involved 
you open up all sorts of possibilities that irrelevant details enter the 
process. Sure that also happens with a judge, but at least you can train 
them a bit. Again note that in the Dutch system the judge is appointed 
without any political background. If that works (as it does here) it 
works better than a jury IMHO. Yet if that fails like in your example 
below, it fails worse.

> Anyway, as I said before, the main issue here is that we leave such 
> determinations to a public jury.  They need to be convinced that there 
> is no "reasonable" doubt of guilt.  The problem with leaving such 
> determinations to the courts (or professional jurors, which amounts to 
> the same thing because they become a part of the system) is that the 
> courts themselves may be corrupted.

indeed.

> Our current system was put in place largely as a reaction to the abuse 
> that the public suffered from the judicial system at the time.  Innocent 
> people were being arrested but never charged with crimes, or convicted 
> with little or no evidence.  In many cases, the authorities flat out 
> lied about evidence in order to convict the men they were after.

You probably can guess what I am thinking now.

> So we threw them out, and started our own system that was controlled by 
> public review.
>

Post a reply to this message

On 25-3-2009 5:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:40:00 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I think it's a shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually 
> quite fascinating, at least I think so.

I talked to one that got out of it yesterday. But he knew the system 
anyway, having been sued a couple of times for not so good reasons. He 
is a medical doctor and the first couple of hits when you google him are 
sites that will provide you with his track record both in clinical 
practice as well as in the court room for money. I though that is quite 
sad. Somehow I expected to find his homepage at his university and his 
outstanding scientific contributions first.

Other than that I agree, I think I would have liked to do it if we had 
had a system with juries, which we don't.

Post a reply to this message