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

On 25-3-2009 1:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote: 
> 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.

We have them here also dumped on us in large quantities, but I don't 
watch them.

>> 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?

That's your American background kicking in again ;) You won't believe 
how often the government here will fund two (or more) parties with 
opposite goals, just to get a balance. If e.g. the public TV channels 
would not do its job of criticizing the government enough, I guess they 
would change the law to make sure they do.
It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
they will do what the government wants. Most likely you will get a 
speech on how the politics is failing to make decisions and leaves the 
difficult problems to the judges.

>>> 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."

I am sorry but most of the examples that were used in the video were 
about irrelevant remarks IMO.

> 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.

Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that 
continuously make noise in front of your house. Or off that big truck 
that is parked in front of your house for years. Comment of the police 
when we asked them if they could do something about it as the neighbour 
(about 5 house around the corner) refused to place it somewhere else: 
'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a 
place for him to park we won't do anything about it. Anyway I don't 
think it takes up a relevant part of your view on the river from where 
you live and no I am not going inside to see myself.'

>>>> 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.

I just go by the opinion of this law professor and the police officer 
that did the second part of the lecture.

>> possible suspect. He could hear him scream through the walls.
> 
> And again, that's the police and not the courts. 

It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/projects/staple/
> 
>   "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
> to reveal the contents of the archive."
> 
>   I have always wondered about this. To what extent can authorities,
> legally, pressure a suspect to reveal information that only he knows,
> when this information would prove his guilt?

Under the US Constitution, the answer is quite clearly "never."  A 
defendant in a trial cannot be forced to testify against himself.

A corporation, on the other hand, has fewer rights than a person; a 
corporation's records are subject to subpoena, and records thus obtained 
can be admitted as evidence against the company.

Regards,
John
(who is not a lawyer)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 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.
> 

Heh, that was a Freudian slip if I ever saw one ...




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:57:04 +0100, andrel wrote:

> 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.

Under those circumstances, he'd probably be dismissed by the prosecution 
in many cases anyways, since the prosecuting side wouldn't want someone 
who was angry at "the system" and might be inclined to take their anger 
about the system out against the prosecutors by being excessively lenient 
on the defendant.  At the very least, there would likely be a few extra 
questions during voir dire.

> 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.

Interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-3-2009 16:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:57:04 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Under those circumstances, he'd probably be dismissed by the prosecution 
> in many cases anyways, since the prosecuting side wouldn't want someone 
> who was angry at "the system" and might be inclined to take their anger 
> about the system out against the prosecutors by being excessively lenient 
> on the defendant.  At the very least, there would likely be a few extra 
> questions during voir dire.

I don't think he is angry with the system, just with the people that 
sued him for no good reason other than that as a medical doctor he is an 
easy victim.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> You get the facts judged by the judge, yes? And doesn't the government 
>> pay the judge?
> 
> That's your American background kicking in again ;) You won't believe 
> how often the government here will fund two (or more) parties with 
> opposite goals, just to get a balance.

We do here too. The government pays the judge and both the prosecution and 
defense lawyers in many cases.  The government doesn't pay the juries.

If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature, 
they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free 
and the jury isn't in any trouble. That's the primary reason for having a 
jury. They, in theory, get to overthrow bad laws by simply refusing to 
convict anyone.

> It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
> private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
> they will do what the government wants.

So, if you accused the judge of upholding the law because that's what he's 
paid for, he'd be upset?  Do you have judges that refuse to enforce certain 
laws because they don't think the laws are good laws?

Incidentally, you *do* understand that every[1] court case gets to be heard 
by a judge only, if the accused wants it that way?  It's a right to have a 
jury,not a requirement.


[1] AFAIK. Maybe stuff like death penalty cases, you *have* to have a jury 
or something, but it's going to be a rare situation.

> Most likely you will get a 
> speech on how the politics is failing to make decisions and leaves the 
> difficult problems to the judges.

Of course they do. We do that here too. The judges don't have to justify 
their decisions to keep their jobs.

> I am sorry but most of the examples that were used in the video were 
> about irrelevant remarks IMO.

I'd probably have to watch the video to continue discussing the specifics.

> Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that 
> continuously make noise in front of your house.

I'd rather have to solve that in a neighborly way than to have the abuse 
going on in the USA right now. :-)  And yes, I have some rather loud neighbors.

The funniest one was when the brother and sister were out on the street 
arguing. Apparently Dad took away Sister's car for getting a ticket, and 
Sister was complaining and Brother was saying it makes sense. The funny 
thing was that I never before realized you could actually composes sentences 
with more than 50% of the words being variations on the word "fuck". It was 
rather amusing to listen to.

A month later, I hear someone walking past in the evening chatting 
pleasantly about the fucking bitch who mouthed off at that cocksucker at 
work who... you get the idea. I look out the window, and it's the parents 
taking their dog for a walk.

> 'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a 
> place for him to park we won't do anything about it. 

I'd think you'd need some civil way (as in, not involving the police) to 
enforce that sort of thing, then.

>> 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.
> 
> I just go by the opinion of this law professor and the police officer 
> that did the second part of the lecture.

You're also reading PC Magazine's comparison of the performance of Windows 
to OSX. They're telling you the horror stories that go wrong and all the 
ways it can get you in trouble. If they stress all the ways it can go wrong, 
then you're in the best possible shape.

>> And again, that's the police and not the courts. 
> It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.

Understood. :-) The police have been known to be pretty awful here, too.

I'm not sure why they don't just videotape everything that happens. Well, I 
know, I mean, I'm not sure it's a bad idea to require 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