Cryptographers use DMCA to construct a scenario where RIAA has to violate 
DMCA to prove someone is violating their copyrights. :-)

http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/projects/staple/

-- 
   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

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?

  For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?
>

That does make for a great spy novel.  The password is written in umpteen
characters on a sheet of paper in the guy's wallet. In response to a demand to
unlock the device, the guy EATS the paper!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

I bumped "post" too soon...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-incrimination-privilege-stops-with-passwords.ars

If you care enough to track through it, you see that the problem is the 
encrypted partition was unlocked, he admitted it might have child porn, the 
border guards saw something that looked like child porn, and then the drive 
got locked.

The trial judge tried to make the case that they already knew there was 
child porn there and he already admitted there was child porn there, so he's 
not incriminating himself by revealing the password. Other judges in the 
chain of command have said passwords are testimonial.

But since he already admitted he knew the password, that's a different 
situation than saying "I don't know the password, that's not my computer, 
someone else put that there," etc. In *this* case, I'd think it would be 
testimonial and hence protected, because by revealing the password you're 
revealing you know what's protected by the password. It seems pretty clear 
that if you don't admit you know the password, they can't force you to enter 
it.  (And in this particular case, he'd probably be in jail much less time 
for refusing to reveal the password than for getting caught with child porn 
on his laptop.)

There's other stuff out there about the case. For example, he says the 
reason he might have child porn is he downloads bunches of porn, then 
deletes anything that looks suspicious, and he hadn't gotten around to 
cleaning up this latest batch.

But, to answer the question, "the judges are figuring this out right now." 
The link does a decent job of summarizing the arguments back and forth.

IANAL.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
>   "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
> to reveal the contents of the archive."

Hmmm. Apparently the premature post failed for some reason. :-)

I think the author of that sentence doesn't know what they're talking about.

>   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?

That's the "Fifth Amendment."  They can't. They can make you turn over 
*things*, but not information.

Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for example.

>   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?

Well, in this particular case, the defendant already told them he had the 
password.  They're really arguing "I don't want your password, I want your 
locked files."  Since he told them he knows the password, they're arguing 
that they're not getting anything new from him.

Generally, the government doesn't get to do anything about 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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   For example, if authorities ask the suspect what is the decryption
> > password for a file, and the suspect says he can't remember it, can there
> > be any consequences? How do authorities prove that he is lying, that he
> > does remember perfectly, and is simply refusing to tell?
>
> I bumped "post" too soon...
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-incrimination-privilege-stops-with-passwords.ars
>
> If you care enough to track through it, you see that the problem is the
> encrypted partition was unlocked, he admitted it might have child porn, the
> border guards saw something that looked like child porn, and then the drive
> got locked.

huhuhu
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0318091dog1.html

This one got backfired. :P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> This one got backfired. :P

Yeah. In general, the right answer is STFU, at least in America. :-)

-- 
   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

http://xkcd.com/538/

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 3/22/2009 9:43 AM, Darren New wrote:
> There's other stuff out there about the case. For example, he says the
> reason he might have child porn is he downloads bunches of porn, then
> deletes anything that looks suspicious, and he hadn't gotten around to
> cleaning up this latest batch.

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

[1] The difference between cardboard cutout characters and real people 
is that real people can have opposing ideas or emotions at the same 
time.  Yes, I hate people.  Yes, I think they're dicks.  At the same 
time, I have great hopes for our future and I'm consistently (one might 
say naively) optimistic about new people I meet.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
> prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
> password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
> accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for 
> example.

Even in this case they are cutting a deal. Under no circumstances are you 
compelled to provide information that could incriminate yourself. They may 
promise not to prosecute but your ultimate dicision to waive your fifth 
amendment rights depends on whether or not you believe they have evidence to 
convict you.

However, if you give a statement under oath and they can prove that 
statement is false they can get you for purjury. Also, any statement you 
give can be used in court to prosecute you even if you are guilty of 
nothing. That is why if they ask you for the password and you say nothing 
they will have no evidence to prosecute. If they ask for the password and 
you say you don't know what it is and they can prove you knew what it is, 
they can use that in court as evidence of guilt.

I think this guy does a great job of explaining the fifth amenment

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

Post a reply to this message

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

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

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2009 20:10, Mike Hough wrote:
>> Or, alternately, they can ask you to reveal it if they promise not to 
>> prosecute you for it. So they can ask the accountant to disclose the 
>> password to the accounting files and promise not to prosecute the 
>> accountant, but then use the information to prosecute the boss, for 
>> example.
> 
> Even in this case they are cutting a deal. Under no circumstances are you 
> compelled to provide information that could incriminate yourself. They may 
> promise not to prosecute but your ultimate dicision to waive your fifth 
> amendment rights depends on whether or not you believe they have evidence to 
> convict you.
> 
> However, if you give a statement under oath and they can prove that 
> statement is false they can get you for purjury. Also, any statement you 
> give can be used in court to prosecute you even if you are guilty of 
> nothing. That is why if they ask you for the password and you say nothing 
> they will have no evidence to prosecute. If they ask for the password and 
> you say you don't know what it is and they can prove you knew what it is, 
> they can use that in court as evidence of guilt.
> 
> I think this guy does a great job of explaining the fifth amenment
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 
> 
You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted. I think I prefer 
our system without a jury (and the somewhat related plea bargaining, 
something that is often quoted as a reason why you can not extradite a 
person to the US, because there is no guarantee that they will get a 
fair trial).
I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the system here works, 
what they tell you, what they record and to what extend a police officer 
may lie or withhold information, but as far as I know there are not many 
reasons for an average person to have to know that before being the 
subject of an investigation. I may be wrong (but don't extrapolate any 
US experience to assume I am).

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

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
> foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
> too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted.

I'm not sure that's what he's saying there.  Indeed, I think there are lots 
and lots of guilty people who get away with it.

He's more saying "it can't help you to talk to the cops, because their job 
is to arrest you, not judge you."  He's saying "If you *are* guilty, stfu." 
He's saying "If you're not guilty, tell the judge, not the cop."

I *do* think our system is open to abuse. But it's mostly abuse *before* you 
get to the court room, methinks. It's cops arresting people without a good 
reason, or because they don't like your attitude, or etc. I don't think the 
judges or juries are particularly abusive.

> I think I prefer 
> our system without a jury (and the somewhat related plea bargaining, 
> something that is often quoted as a reason why you can not extradite a 
> person to the US, because there is no guarantee that they will get a 
> fair trial).

Welllll...  Depends what you mean by "fair trial."  The whole "fair" bit has 
been going downhill here, with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" 
and all that sort of stuff. And most of the unfairness in those situations 
are when laws get passed to let people bypass the trials altogether - 
confiscating "suspected" drug money, or claiming people are "enemy 
combatants." And stuff like cops turning off video recorders while they do 
things they shouldn't be doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> yet, IANAL.

Me neither. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

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

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

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

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

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

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

Sorry. Braino. You're right of course.

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

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

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 23-3-2009 0:19, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
>> foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
>> too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted.
> 
> I'm not sure that's what he's saying there.  Indeed, I think there are 
> lots and lots of guilty people who get away with it.

You may have missed it, because you are an american too, as is the 
police officer that comes after him, but there is something vital 
missing in his talk: proof. At no point he is actually talking about 
proving guilty or proving innocent. It is about convincing the jury. 
That is more or less the difference between guilty until proven innocent 
and innocent until proven guilty.

> He's more saying "it can't help you to talk to the cops, because their 
> job is to arrest you, not judge you."  He's saying "If you *are* guilty, 
> stfu." He's saying "If you're not guilty, tell the judge, not the cop."

What he is saying is basically that if the police officer *thinks* you 
are guilty anything you say can and probably will be used to get you 
convicted. Unless you can definitely prove that you didn't do it. And if 
you can prove it, don't tell him (her) because he(she) can use that 
knowledge for a counter attack. My conclusion: What really happened is 
immaterial or at least not as important as the track record of the officer.

> I *do* think our system is open to abuse. But it's mostly abuse *before* 
> you get to the court room, methinks. It's cops arresting people without 
> a good reason, or because they don't like your attitude, or etc. I don't 
> think the judges or juries are particularly abusive.
> 
>> I think I prefer our system without a jury (and the somewhat related 
>> plea bargaining, something that is often quoted as a reason why you 
>> can not extradite a person to the US, because there is no guarantee 
>> that they will get a fair trial).
> 
> Welllll...  Depends what you mean by "fair trial."  The whole "fair" bit 
> has been going downhill here, with the "war on drugs" and the "war on 
> terror" and all that sort of stuff. And most of the unfairness in those 
> situations are when laws get passed to let people bypass the trials 
> altogether - confiscating "suspected" drug money, or claiming people are 
> "enemy combatants." And stuff like cops turning off video recorders 
> while they do things they shouldn't be doing.

The reasoning here is that because of the jury trial system and the way 
it is used, it is not sure if someone innocent can still get convicted. 
See the video for examples. Second, because that is not sure any 
prosecutor (or whatever they are called) can tell a suspect: 'Hey, I 
have enough evidence to get you convict. In which case you get at least 
5 years. So be smart, plead guilty and we arrange a nice 3 years 
sentence.' And he may even be right although you are completely 
innocent, you may get convicted if you're defence is not good enough. 
The net result is that innocent people are advised to plead guilty and 
hence never get a trial. So from a foreign point of view there is no 
guarantee that anybody extradited to the US will get a fair trial or 
even a trial at all. NB AFAIK this has not worked yet and people will be 
extradited to the US (under very strict restrictions on what will be 
allowed in the US trial), but it has been publicly debated several times 
here in the newspapers and in parliament. So if in any of such cases 
something happens, next time we will have a diplomatic row.

You are also right in assuming that the lack of moral standards in some 
of the previous governments has played a role in that discussion.

>> yet, IANAL.
> 
> Me neither. :-)

I know.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/23/2009 1:55 PM, andrel wrote:
> The reasoning here is that because of the jury trial system and the way
> it is used, it is not sure if someone innocent can still get convicted.

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

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

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 23-3-2009 23:17, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/23/2009 1:55 PM, andrel wrote:
>> The reasoning here is that because of the jury trial system and the way
>> it is used, it is not sure if someone innocent can still get convicted.
> 
> That's funny, because living here the impression is that it's not sure 
> if someone guilty can get convicted either.

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

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

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

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

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> missing in his talk: proof. At no point he is actually talking about 
> proving guilty or proving innocent. It is about convincing the jury. 

That's what the "proof" is. How else are you going to evaluate evidence?

> That is more or less the difference between guilty until proven innocent 
> and innocent until proven guilty.

To be guilty (in a crime that can lead to jail), the prosecutor has to 
present enough evidence to the jury that all 12 people on the jury agree 
that there's no reasonable way to doubt you did it.  *Before* that, they 
have to have a Grand Jury, which figures out if there's even enough evidence 
to be worth presenting in front of a trial jury.

Does it misfire sometimes? Sure. Do the lawyers try to pick juries that will 
believe them before the process even starts? Sure. Do you get to waive your 
rights to a jury and instead have the judge decide? Sure.

> What he is saying is basically that if the police officer *thinks* you 
> are guilty anything you say can and probably will be used to get you 
> convicted.

Right. Yes?

> Unless you can definitely prove that you didn't do it.

Um, no.

I was on a jury. The police in the unmarked car watch the man break the 
window of the car, reach in, take the jacket on the seat, put it on, and 
cross the street. It was hours of arguing with at least a couple of the 
people on the jury that he really was guilty.

> And if 
> you can prove it, don't tell him (her) because he(she) can use that 
> knowledge for a counter attack.

Yes. STFU.

> My conclusion: What really happened is 
> immaterial or at least not as important as the track record of the officer.

The officer still has to present evidence to the jury. If he says "I found 
drugs in his car", and he didn't, the defense lawyer will say "where are the 
drugs, then?"  If the officer says "He was doing 120MPH", the defense lawyer 
will say "Where's the print-out from the radar gun?"  If, on the other hand, 
you said "Sorry, officer, I know I was going too fast", or "Did you stop me 
because of the drugs in the car?" then you've given the cop the evidence he 
needs to give to the jury.

> The reasoning here is that because of the jury trial system and the way 
> it is used, it is not sure if someone innocent can still get convicted. 

Of course they can. But I'm sure it happens where they don't have juries also.

> See the video for examples. Second, because that is not sure any 
> prosecutor (or whatever they are called) can tell a suspect: 'Hey, I 
> have enough evidence to get you convict. In which case you get at least 
> 5 years. So be smart, plead guilty and we arrange a nice 3 years 
> sentence.' And he may even be right although you are completely 
> innocent, you may get convicted if you're defence is not good enough.

This is true, *if* he has evidence. If you're actually innocent, chances are 
the cops don't actually have any evidence, unless they plant it on you, 
which I'm sure happens other places too.

> The net result is that innocent people are advised to plead guilty and 
> hence never get a trial.

I think the completely-innocent *usually* don't wind up in trouble at all. I 
think it's getting more common that they do, or that it's getting more 
noticed due to the number of people with cell phones and video cameras these 
days.

The questions come up when you do something you thought was legal but isn't, 
or when you do something technically legal that someone powerful doesn't 
like (say, don't sleep with your congressman's wife), or you do something a 
little bit illegal (like, "I only had the illegal drugs for my own use") and 
then raise a stink about getting caught.  Or when it's a he-said-she-said 
sort of thing, like the guy says it was consensual and the woman says it 
wasn't.

 > So from a foreign point of view there is no
> guarantee that anybody extradited to the US will get a fair trial or 
> even a trial at all.

I think it's also the case there's a lot of places where if you're foreign 
you're just screwed in the legal system too. :-)

> You are also right in assuming that the lack of moral standards in some 
> of the previous governments has played a role in that discussion.

Yah. I think it's gone downhill here lately, but it's hard to say if that's 
just my awareness, an actual downhill, or whether it's just hitting the news 
more often when things go badly.

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

Crappy laws. That doesn't mean they weren't guilty. They were just guilty of 
breaking laws that probably shouldn't be laws in the first place. Don't 
confuse "your legal system sucks" with "innocent people often go to jail". 
:-)  *Harmless* guilty people often go to jail, I'll grant you. This video 
is about how to avoid that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

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

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

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

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

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

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:07:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like $20/
day, but the government does pay the jury.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:00:49 +0100, andrel wrote:

> 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.

Oh, no, I wasn't saying he was angry with the system, but that he's been 
sued in court is something the prosecution would be likely to play on 
during voir dire in order to disqualify him.  Particularly if the case 
involves medical elements he may be familiar with if the prosecution has 
a weak case.  His medical expertise could also be a liability to the 
prosecution, so add to that that he's been involved in malpractice suits 
and he would be seen as undesirable in some instances.

That also would tend to be an automatic disqualification from any 
malpractice suit he might sit on a jury for, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Right. In the appeals case, there's no jury, because the jury already saw 
all the facts. The appeal is checking that the legal system did the right 
thing, not arguing that it came to the wrong conclusion.

In other words, if you're guilty and everyone followed the rules, you won't 
correctly go free by appealing the case.

Appeals aren't "I didn't do it."  Appeals are "the judge allowed the wrong 
evidence" or "the judge miscalculated how much I owe" or even "the judge 
shouldn't have been allowed to take the case in the first place."

If the jury believed the prosecution witness and not the defense witness, 
you're not going to get out of that with an appeal.

> 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.

And the judge tries to convince the jury to obey the law, and to convict 
even if they think it's a bad law, but there's no actual requirement to do 
so, and indeed the founders of the country explicitly put into their 
writings that the jury was there to keep the new rulers from passing bad laws.

Not that *that* worked out too well... :-)

> 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).

I didn't get one of those. But then, it was just breaking into a car. A 
pretty straightforward crime.

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

It can be annoying for busy people to take three to five days off work 
without pay in order to listen to some low-life who broke into a car trying 
to get out of the punishment. :-)

It might have been more interesting in cases where there was more to it, 
like the one where the father was accused of mishandling the baby, or where 
the sailor was accused of rape (along with "breaking and entering with grave 
bodily harm") six months after the fact because he followed the two ladies 
into their house and was invited to sleep with both of them at once.

-- 
   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

Chambers wrote:
> judicial system is a review by a jury of your peers, 

No, it's not. That's England's system.

And "peer" doesn't mean what you think it means there. :-)

Ours is a jury from the same jurisdiction.

> 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.

We do both. Appeals are a check on misoperation of the legal system.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like $20/
> day, but the government does pay the jury.

Well, yes, and something like $6 here. For a day. That's not pay, that's 
parking reimbursement. :-)

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> His medical expertise could also be a liability to the 
> prosecution, so add to that that he's been involved in malpractice suits 
> and he would be seen as undesirable in some instances.

Also, neither side wants an expert on the jury, as the others might give his 
opinion more weight than their own. If you have a case about someone's 
injuries, you're not going to have a doctor on the jury, because the rest of 
the jury would just defer to the doctor on the opinion of whether (say) the 
defendant was strong enough to cause that kind of injury.

They want you looking at the evidence presented, not the evidence someone 
else learned in school. :-)

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like $20/
>> day, but the government does pay the jury.
> 
> Well, yes, and something like $6 here. For a day. That's not pay, that's 
> parking reimbursement. :-)

More specifically, you get paid whether you follow the government's laws or 
not, and you can't get fired from the position for deciding "wrongly".

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 25-3-2009 17:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

> 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.

Is that anything more than a theory? Is something being a bad law 
discussed as such within the jury? How many juries refuse to convict 
someone who smoked or sold small quantities of marijuana because that 
would actually increase future crimes in a neighbourhood or some similar 
line of though?
BTW overthrowing bad laws is very difficult here. Judges are not allowed 
to test laws against the constitution. In the end they often find a more 
subtle way.

>> 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? 

I was more thinking of convicting based on weak evidence or sentencing 
harder because the politicians demand a firmer stand.

> Do you have judges that refuse to enforce 
> certain laws because they don't think the laws are good laws?

No, they can't. At least not individually. It should not matter if you 
get judge A or judge B. If two judges or groups of judges in different 
parts of the country differ to much, that is a reason for an investigation.

> 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.

yes.

> [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 though that also judges were elected or am I mistaken?

>> 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.

They were not from this neighbourhood, just hanging around here. We 
tried the neighbourly way. Which did not work and only resulted in some 
mild vandalism on properties of those complaining. So we asked the 
police to have a chat with them. Which they didn't for some months and 
then did it in a friendly way. At first refusing to talk to the 
neighbours that were complaining and then by e.g asking our 90+yo 
neighbour if she had problems with this group when a couple of them were 
standing by and listening. So the police could safely report back that 
there was actually no problem.

> 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.

At least you now knew where they learned to talk like that.

>> '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.

Our police is very civil. It is the normal next step to prevent 
something like this to escalate.

>>> 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. :-)

And you get a number of funny programs of everything that went wrong as 
a bonus. It might even make a small profit for the police departments if 
they sell it at the right prize.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  Isn't that a case of mistrial? Is the procedure in case of mistrial
really letting the accused go free, rather than setting up a new trial?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Is that anything more than a theory? Is something being a bad law 
> discussed as such within the jury?

Yes. Not often, mind. Mostly drug stuff, or things like interracial marriage 
being illegal. There was probably more of it back in the early days, or 
during times of great upheaval and unpopular laws.

> BTW overthrowing bad laws is very difficult here. Judges are not allowed 
> to test laws against the constitution. In the end they often find a more 
> subtle way.

Yeah. There's nothing in our constitution that says the judges can declare 
something unconstitutional either. On the other hand, it's those judges 
making the decision, too. :-)

>>> 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? 
> 
> I was more thinking of convicting based on weak evidence or sentencing 
> harder because the politicians demand a firmer stand.

Yeah. That's something you don't have to worry about with a jury.

>> Do you have judges that refuse to enforce certain laws because they 
>> don't think the laws are good laws?
> 
> No, they can't. At least not individually.

That's one of the reasons we have juries here. Not that it always works, but 
if you look at the writings of the people writing the constitution, they put 
juries on the list as a balance against the government's power to convict 
people based on bad laws.

> It should not matter if you 
> get judge A or judge B. If two judges or groups of judges in different 
> parts of the country differ to much, that is a reason for an investigation.

Same here.  If two peer judges disagree about how a law should be enforced, 
it gets bumped up to the next level. That's where you see things about "the 
ninth federal circuit passing cases to the supreme court" kind of thing.

>> Of course they do. We do that here too. The judges don't have to 
>> justify their decisions to keep their jobs.
> 
> I though that also judges were elected or am I mistaken?

Some are, some aren't. The federal supreme court judges are appointed for 
life by the president of the USA. State judges are all over. Usually trial 
judges are just hired by the appropriate part of the government, I think. 
It's only the judges that make binding precidents that get elected, if at 
all.  (For example, I voted for one judge in the last election here, so some 
get elected, but clearly not all.)

Note that laws don't change meaning here unless an appeal is filed.  If you 
get off for crime X in the first trial, it means nothing for me going into a 
trial for the same crime. But if you appeal something, and the appeal judge 
makes a decision, every trial judge that appeals to the same judge is 
supposed to follow that same decisions. That's the precident. Which I'm 
spelling wrong. :-)

> So the police could safely report back that 
> there was actually no problem.

I'd *still* rather have that than having the chief of police say "Oh, we 
stop and question all black teenagers we see, because we want them to be 
afraid of us." :-)

> At least you now knew where they learned to talk like that.

Exactly. It was the whole casualness of the stream of cusswords that was 
amusing. Not that it bothers me in the least, but it was amusing.

>>> '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.
> 
> Our police is very civil. It is the normal next step to prevent 
> something like this to escalate.

Sorry. The word "civil" in legal situations here doesn't mean "nice", it 
means "person to person."  So if the police arrest you, it's "criminal." If 
you sue someone for slander, it's "civil".

> And you get a number of funny programs of everything that went wrong as 
> a bonus. It might even make a small profit for the police departments if 
> they sell it at the right prize.

Heh!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message