ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th November 2019, 01:50 PM   #41
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Could differences between the US and the UK in police interrogation methods be contributing to differences in opinions about talking to the police?
Yes, plus there are differences in interviews. I have seen plenty of voluntary attendance interviews where the investigating officers are going through the motions of interviewing someone they know is innocent, to establish their alibi formally, so that they can be ruled out as a suspect. I have seen plenty where an alibi has been presented very quickly and that has been established and the suspect is back out of the office, cleared of any suspicion.

Bear in mind, it is an earner for lawyers to attend interviews, so of course they want people to keep quiet until they attend.

The people least likely to want a lawyer present during an interview were members of organised crime groups. Their tactic was to present an alibi asap, which of course would check out and then they would be released. They wanted to spend as little time in the police office as possible with the least amount of fuss. They were the most cooperative and quiet prisoners of all!
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2019, 02:09 PM   #42
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Could differences between the US and the UK in police interrogation methods be contributing to differences in opinions about talking to the police?
Absolutely. No question.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2019, 02:38 PM   #43
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Could differences between the US and the UK in police interrogation methods be contributing to differences in opinions about talking to the police?
To elaborate, the UK/European system just isn't nearly as adversarial as the US system. Local practice may vary, but in the US law enforcement all too often treats the number of felony convictions it can get like a high score on a video game. Confessions are really efficient when that is the goal.

The idea that a trial is a quest for the truth really isn't a thing on this side of the pond. The idea that actual innocence should be a ground to have an otherwise properly litigated conviction overturned is only just now gaining ground.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2019, 03:15 PM   #44
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,988
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
To elaborate, the UK/European system just isn't nearly as adversarial as the US system.
There's a noticeable difference in how lawyers act with regards to any criminal allegations made against their clients and most prominently in how they relay their clients view on those allegations, at least between Swedish and American lawyers.

In America they seem to always say that their client is innocent, while in Sweden they tend to say that their client asserts their innocence (or something along those lines). In a sense, Swedish lawyers don't nessecerily act like they are personally convinced of their client's claims and explanations. That's one reason why they tend to come off as being more neutral and makes criminal justice come off as less adversarial.

As some foreign people noticed when ASSAP Rocky was on trial, Swedish trials are a lot less formal and strict compare to American ones. You won't really hear anything you couldn't have read in the police report of the preliminary investigation, which is public information and available from the court after charges have been filed.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 29th November 2019 at 03:21 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2019, 03:31 PM   #45
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
how silence is treated in the two systems

Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Could differences between the US and the UK in police interrogation methods be contributing to differences in opinions about talking to the police?
The other factor is one also noted in this thread (see comment #10), that not making an assertion initially that you later rely upon may have negative consequences in the British system depending on the circumstances. I lean toward silence, until my lawyer can advise me and preferable can be in the room with me if possible.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 29th November 2019 at 03:34 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2019, 04:32 PM   #46
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,680
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
....
In America they seem to always say that their client is innocent, while in Sweden they tend to say that their client asserts their innocence (or something along those lines).
.....
I don't think U.S. lawyers explicitly claim that their clients are "innocent," as if they know, but rather that they are not guilty unless and until the prosecution can prove otherwise. Guilt is a legal concept. Even if a defendant indisputably committed a particular act, it's up to the prosecution to prove to a judge and jury that the act was actually a crime, and which particular crime. The defense lawyer's job in part is to ensure that the prosecution plays by the rules.

Last edited by Bob001; 29th November 2019 at 04:33 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2019, 06:32 PM   #47
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
There's a noticeable difference in how lawyers act with regards to any criminal allegations made against their clients and most prominently in how they relay their clients view on those allegations, at least between Swedish and American lawyers.

In America they seem to always say that their client is innocent, while in Sweden they tend to say that their client asserts their innocence (or something along those lines). In a sense, Swedish lawyers don't nessecerily act like they are personally convinced of their client's claims and explanations. That's one reason why they tend to come off as being more neutral and makes criminal justice come off as less adversarial.

As some foreign people noticed when ASSAP Rocky was on trial, Swedish trials are a lot less formal and strict compare to American ones. You won't really hear anything you couldn't have read in the police report of the preliminary investigation, which is public information and available from the court after charges have been filed.
(In addition to Bob001's post that hit most of the relevant points)

Technically, American lawyers are supposed to act the way you describe Swedish lawyers, and in many places that is the practice. However, sometimes, and especially in higher profile cases and/or bigger media markets, there is a tendency for lawyers to "try cases in the media," which means to use the media to sway public opinion to influence the judge and potential jury pool. That is where you see a lot of the confident puffery of this sort. Well, there and in fiction.

I'm unconvinced as to the effectiveness of this practice, and suspect it has more to do with the lawyers trying to be seen for political or business reasons than anything else. Or at least feeling like they have to respond in kind when the opposing counsel does it.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2019, 01:52 PM   #48
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
To elaborate, the UK/European system just isn't nearly as adversarial as the US system. Local practice may vary, but in the US law enforcement all too often treats the number of felony convictions it can get like a high score on a video game. Confessions are really efficient when that is the goal.

The idea that a trial is a quest for the truth really isn't a thing on this side of the pond. The idea that actual innocence should be a ground to have an otherwise properly litigated conviction overturned is only just now gaining ground.
The US/UK system is adversarial compared to most of Europe with the inquisitorial system.

The UK systems are very target driven, especially for convictions and most high profile of all, the number of sex crime and rape convictions.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2020, 05:07 AM   #49
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
You keep saying you want a lawyer. This is all you say. If they say you need a lawyer or they have to arrest you, you better just say you want a lawyer. If they want to chat, you want a lawyer. If they ask if you would like them to get you a taco, you want a lawyer.

Asking for a lawyer affirmatively invokes your fifth amendment right to a lawyer and all interrogation must cease. The only way that it can continue is if the accused initiates the conversation on his own without any influence from an officer. If they continue to question, everything is inadmissible. Usually they will try to record you agreeing to talk, so it is important to just ask for a lawyer.

If they threaten to arrest you, you can say that if you aren't under arrest you wish to leave and end the conversation... but you can't go wrong with saying that you want a lawyer because that also amounts to "formally arrest me and get me a lawyer or shut up."

If they arrest you after that, you weren't leaving that room without being arrested no matter what you said. The more they try to convince/threaten you otherwise, the more you need a lawyer.
I watched a documentary* recently where this happened. On having asked for a lawyer and then being told he was not under arrest, the man being questioned politely tried to leave the interrogation room and moved past a police officer, gently moving him aside. The man was immediately arrested for assault. In my view, all along the police were trying (successfully) to rile him.

This was all on the police video.

* It was American. I can't recall the name of the person murdered.

Last edited by The Common Potato; 3rd January 2020 at 05:13 AM.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2020, 05:59 PM   #50
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,403
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
If you were accused of a crime and you knew there was evidence to show you were somewhere else at the time and it could not have been you, would keep quiet?
Here in the US? Not only "yes" but "hell yes."

And I object to your lumping in the US/UK systems of justice versus the "rest of Europe" based primarily on the PACE system in the UK versus the pseudo-science of the Reid method; and I do mean pseudo-science in the most literal sense. It was created by Reid and a few others along the same lines as the polygraph machine, except just using body language as a supposed indicator of innocence or guilt. They were not psychologists or sociologists or any other scientists but merely criminal justice types who spent their careers working either as or with the police.

I will give credit where due; at least their method was far and away better than what came before (which was often simply physical or mental torture; i.e., the third degree) but ultimately should have been left in the dustbin of history along with rubber hoses and phone books being "liberally applied until desired effect achieved" most especially after actual verifiable scientific studies were done which demonstrated the inefficacy of all that nonsense.

So why does the US still use such procedures? Because it does what it's supposed to.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2020, 10:51 AM   #51
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Here in the US? Not only "yes" but "hell yes."

And I object to your lumping in the US/UK systems of justice versus the "rest of Europe" based primarily on the PACE system in the UK versus the pseudo-science of the Reid method; and I do mean pseudo-science in the most literal sense. It was created by Reid and a few others along the same lines as the polygraph machine, except just using body language as a supposed indicator of innocence or guilt. They were not psychologists or sociologists or any other scientists but merely criminal justice types who spent their careers working either as or with the police.

I will give credit where due; at least their method was far and away better than what came before (which was often simply physical or mental torture; i.e., the third degree) but ultimately should have been left in the dustbin of history along with rubber hoses and phone books being "liberally applied until desired effect achieved" most especially after actual verifiable scientific studies were done which demonstrated the inefficacy of all that nonsense.

So why does the US still use such procedures? Because it does what it's supposed to.

Regarding Reid, one pseudo-scientific aspect is that it trains police to think they can detect deception in the behavioral analysis interview, although this is based on unreliable cues. This then forms the basis for justifying the guilt-presumptive interrogation method that can induce false confessions. One issue is the use of outside profit-making companies for police training, which seems to be more prevalent in the US. A company that makes money from a training service has a vested interest in protecting their brand and produces product advertising rather than impartial research. If major changes are made to procedures in the light of research evidence, this could be seen as tantamount to admitting that previous claims were inaccurate.

I was also thinking about this issue in relation to the work by Paul EkmanWP on microexpressions. He has a long and distinguished academic background in research on emotion and facial expressions, but now has a company that trains people to detect microexpressions. The empirical basis for this seems much stronger than for many lie detection methods, yet the actual evidence seems rather scant. A recent article does not support the effectiveness of microexpression training. But perhaps police use of services from private companies is a topic for another thread.

Although the differences in interrogation methods as well as drawing adverse inferences from silence can explain why those in the US might be less willing to talk to police, some of the reasons given (e.g. police might be able to get defence witnesses to change statements) could apply in the UK too as PACE doesn't necessarily protect against this. Perhaps there are various additional reasons for more distrust in police in the US, or perhaps there is too much trust in the UK.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 01:43 AM   #52
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Here in the US? Not only "yes" but "hell yes."

And I object to your lumping in the US/UK systems of justice versus the "rest of Europe" based primarily on the PACE system in the UK versus the pseudo-science of the Reid method; and I do mean pseudo-science in the most literal sense. It was created by Reid and a few others along the same lines as the polygraph machine, except just using body language as a supposed indicator of innocence or guilt. They were not psychologists or sociologists or any other scientists but merely criminal justice types who spent their careers working either as or with the police.

I will give credit where due; at least their method was far and away better than what came before (which was often simply physical or mental torture; i.e., the third degree) but ultimately should have been left in the dustbin of history along with rubber hoses and phone books being "liberally applied until desired effect achieved" most especially after actual verifiable scientific studies were done which demonstrated the inefficacy of all that nonsense.

So why does the US still use such procedures? Because it does what it's supposed to.
When I was in the police in Scotland, the rules were not from PACE and I have never heard of the Reid method.

At what point would you tell the police you have an alibi? Or would you just not tell them at all?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 01:46 AM   #53
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Regarding Reid, one pseudo-scientific aspect is that it trains police to think they can detect deception in the behavioral analysis interview, although this is based on unreliable cues. This then forms the basis for justifying the guilt-presumptive interrogation method that can induce false confessions. One issue is the use of outside profit-making companies for police training, which seems to be more prevalent in the US. A company that makes money from a training service has a vested interest in protecting their brand and produces product advertising rather than impartial research. If major changes are made to procedures in the light of research evidence, this could be seen as tantamount to admitting that previous claims were inaccurate.

I was also thinking about this issue in relation to the work by Paul EkmanWP on microexpressions. He has a long and distinguished academic background in research on emotion and facial expressions, but now has a company that trains people to detect microexpressions. The empirical basis for this seems much stronger than for many lie detection methods, yet the actual evidence seems rather scant. A recent article does not support the effectiveness of microexpression training. But perhaps police use of services from private companies is a topic for another thread.

Although the differences in interrogation methods as well as drawing adverse inferences from silence can explain why those in the US might be less willing to talk to police, some of the reasons given (e.g. police might be able to get defence witnesses to change statements) could apply in the UK too as PACE doesn't necessarily protect against this. Perhaps there are various additional reasons for more distrust in police in the US, or perhaps there is too much trust in the UK.
The interview training I did had nothing at all on any form of body language.

I do think that was far too much trust in the police in the UK, but that is definitely changing. Dixon of Dock Green is long gone.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 07:26 AM   #54
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
When I was in the police in Scotland, the rules were not from PACE and I have never heard of the Reid method.

At what point would you tell the police you have an alibi? Or would you just not tell them at all?
Again, in the US...

Through a lawyer. Always through a lawyer who finds out the context of the alibi.

Story time. This is a severe case but can give an idea of why not blurting things out is a good idea even when the cops are totally acting in good faith and aren't going to go out of their way to bust up your alibi even if it is genuine.

There was this lad back in the 70s who was just walking down the street. The police stopped and asked to chat with him. They asked him about a murder the night before and where was he. They sounded accusatory.

This lad, all of 18, told them that he knew nothing of a murder because he had been breaking into an empty house the night before. He didn't want to be accused of killing someone and felt bad about the burglary anyway and figured it was a compelling alibi.

Problem was, the lad was with some guy he knew. The lad was clearing out the downstairs while the other dude was upstairs. While upstairs, this guy stumbled upon a sleeping elderly woman. The guy, who was both low functioning and on PCP decided it was simplest to just quietly strangle her and not mention it at all.

So, since a killing occurred during this burglary, the lad didn't give an alibi; he gave a confession. A good one. He was convicted and sentenced to life with no parole. He went into jail at the time of arrest and didn't get out until 30 years later when some lawyer found a needle in a haystack fatal technical error in the trial transcripts.

If the lad just kept mum until he talked to a lawyer he would have never done a single day because the only thing connecting him to the scene was the testimony of the other guy which was a whole bunch of unreliable. Instead he would have died in prison for being an idiot teen breaking into a house if it wasn't for a one in a million freak trial error.

(Sure, he deserved some consequence for the break-in but life in prison is a bit strong)
xxxxx

Now, this is unlikely, but the point is that a suspect does not know the context of the questioning and something as much as "Sure, Bill wanted to go to the store so I drove him." can turn into enough evidence to indict for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance or something.

This goes triple quadruple for reals if it is the feds wanting a word about some white collar stuff.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 10:06 AM   #55
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,680
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
.....
Now, this is unlikely, but the point is that a suspect does not know the context of the questioning and something as much as "Sure, Bill wanted to go to the store so I drove him." can turn into enough evidence to indict for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance or something.

This goes triple quadruple for reals if it is the feds wanting a word about some white collar stuff.

As the Miranda warning says, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatar...ndarights.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2020, 01:40 PM   #56
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,832
But Law & Order has taught me that only guilty people with something to hide "Remain Silent" or "Lawyer Up" or "Ask to see a warrant" or "Plead the 5th."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2020, 01:18 AM   #57
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,314
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But Law & Order has taught me that only guilty people with something to hide "Remain Silent" or "Lawyer Up" or "Ask to see a warrant" or "Plead the 5th."
Can I suggest that the innocent people have a greater need for a lawyer than the guilty. One reason is to avoid a false confession. Plus what has been said earlier in this thread.

If the police want to enter your premises I would like to see a warrant just in case they find something innocent and say it was stolen. And it can be hard to get rid of them. They were told that incriminating evidence is on your premises. They have done a quick search and found nothing. You are denying everything. Maybe they need to do a more detailed search.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2020, 10:54 AM   #58
Yalius
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Again, in the US...

Through a lawyer. Always through a lawyer who finds out the context of the alibi.

Story time. This is a severe case but can give an idea of why not blurting things out is a good idea even when the cops are totally acting in good faith and aren't going to go out of their way to bust up your alibi even if it is genuine.

There was this lad back in the 70s who was just walking down the street. The police stopped and asked to chat with him. They asked him about a murder the night before and where was he. They sounded accusatory.

This lad, all of 18, told them that he knew nothing of a murder because he had been breaking into an empty house the night before. He didn't want to be accused of killing someone and felt bad about the burglary anyway and figured it was a compelling alibi.

Problem was, the lad was with some guy he knew. The lad was clearing out the downstairs while the other dude was upstairs. While upstairs, this guy stumbled upon a sleeping elderly woman. The guy, who was both low functioning and on PCP decided it was simplest to just quietly strangle her and not mention it at all.

So, since a killing occurred during this burglary, the lad didn't give an alibi; he gave a confession. A good one. He was convicted and sentenced to life with no parole. He went into jail at the time of arrest and didn't get out until 30 years later when some lawyer found a needle in a haystack fatal technical error in the trial transcripts.

If the lad just kept mum until he talked to a lawyer he would have never done a single day because the only thing connecting him to the scene was the testimony of the other guy which was a whole bunch of unreliable. Instead he would have died in prison for being an idiot teen breaking into a house if it wasn't for a one in a million freak trial error.

(Sure, he deserved some consequence for the break-in but life in prison is a bit strong)
xxxxx

Now, this is unlikely, but the point is that a suspect does not know the context of the questioning and something as much as "Sure, Bill wanted to go to the store so I drove him." can turn into enough evidence to indict for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance or something.

This goes triple quadruple for reals if it is the feds wanting a word about some white collar stuff.
Ok, question-- why is this scenario presented as a bad thing? The only issue I have with this narrative is, why on earth would a freak trial error spring the guy?

I mean, involved in the burglary, check. During the burglary, his buddy killed someone, check. So guilty of felony murder. Obviously didn't plead guilty despite being clearly guilty. If he'd pled guilty and turned state's evidence against the buddy, would have gotten off with much less than a life sentence. So the guy's own choices got him the life sentence which he somehow lucked into a trial error springing him. The last part is the only miscarriage of justice I see here, no way should a one-in-a-million trial error act as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

What you're advocating is, keep quiet, and get away with murder. I cannot accept that as a positive thing.
Yalius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2020, 05:53 PM   #59
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Yalius View Post
Obviously didn't plead guilty despite being clearly guilty. If he'd pled guilty and turned state's evidence against the buddy, would have gotten off with much less than a life sentence.
Both wrong. Actually pleaded guilty but it was thrown out when the state violated the agreement... The prosecutors played dirty pool the whole way... just that some guy eventually found something that couldn't be waived off or kept out of court, unlike things like jury tampering which are hard to prove years later and because of jury confidentiality laws.
Quote:

What you're advocating is, keep quiet, and get away with murder. I cannot accept that as a positive thing.
Sure, I guess there are people that think an 18 year old rummaging around a house merits a life sentence because of some holdover law from medieval times that only exists as a sop to prosecutors who like murder convictions but think it is a bummer to actually prove any sort of intent isn't a perversion of justice, but, well, screw them.

Too bad it wasn't ten years earlier; he could have gotten the death penalty and then he's dead so justice served without pesky technical details or sweats about state misconduct, amirite?

Anyway, the point is don't say anything because you don't know the context... even if there are those that would be upset that your speeding didn't end in your being stuffed in the brazen bull.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 03:08 AM   #60
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
....
Anyway, the point is don't say anything because you don't know the context... even if there are those that would be upset that your speeding didn't end in your being stuffed in the brazen bull.
You are sending out a mixed message there. I think what your actual message is; do not say anything, unless it is via a solicitor.

In my experience of being accused of a crime, when I saw a solicitor, he advised me to say what had happened, because that would provide exculpatory evidence that would mean the police would struggle to charge me as I could show that no crime had been committed.

The sneaky police, knowing that there was exculpatory evidence, ignored it and did not interview me and just charged me instead. I had to wait to my trial before the exculpatory evidence could be presented and then the Sheriff found me not guilty, pointing out that mens rea had not been established and in fact, no crime had been committed.

If there was a right to be interviewed and speak out (as well as a right to be silent), then there are instances where the police would be forced to take into account exculpatory evidence which they would rather not, in order to get a detection and boost their figures.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 05:05 AM   #61
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,553
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Both wrong. Actually pleaded guilty but it was thrown out when the state violated the agreement... The prosecutors played dirty pool the whole way... just that some guy eventually found something that couldn't be waived off or kept out of court, unlike things like jury tampering which are hard to prove years later and because of jury confidentiality laws.

Sure, I guess there are people that think an 18 year old rummaging around a house merits a life sentence because of some holdover law from medieval times that only exists as a sop to prosecutors who like murder convictions but think it is a bummer to actually prove any sort of intent isn't a perversion of justice, but, well, screw them.

Too bad it wasn't ten years earlier; he could have gotten the death penalty and then he's dead so justice served without pesky technical details or sweats about state misconduct, amirite?

Anyway, the point is don't say anything because you don't know the context... even if there are those that would be upset that your speeding didn't end in your being stuffed in the brazen bull.
I thought this was a much later concept. Interestingly English law at the time did not permit confessions as evidence of guilt because they were thought unreliable. Therefore his confession would have been inadmissible! This discouraged torture. When torture was used (less often than is commonly thought), it was to obtain witness testimony against others since you could not self incriminate.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 06:39 AM   #62
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You are sending out a mixed message there. I think what your actual message is; do not say anything, unless it is via a solicitor.

In my experience of being accused of a crime, when I saw a solicitor, he advised me to say what had happened, because that would provide exculpatory evidence that would mean the police would struggle to charge me as I could show that no crime had been committed.

The sneaky police, knowing that there was exculpatory evidence, ignored it and did not interview me and just charged me instead. I had to wait to my trial before the exculpatory evidence could be presented and then the Sheriff found me not guilty, pointing out that mens rea had not been established and in fact, no crime had been committed.

If there was a right to be interviewed and speak out (as well as a right to be silent), then there are instances where the police would be forced to take into account exculpatory evidence which they would rather not, in order to get a detection and boost their figures.
Well, yes. The implication was speak through a lawyer.

I think the idea that police desperate to charge you will deal with that exculpatory evidence in good faith might be a tad optimistic. Quite often talking to them before it counts just lest them know how to better skew things or just outright lie.

Then again, I can be a cynic. Not all cops, etc.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 07:00 AM   #63
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I thought this was a much later concept. Interestingly English law at the time did not permit confessions as evidence of guilt because they were thought unreliable. Therefore his confession would have been inadmissible! This discouraged torture. When torture was used (less often than is commonly thought), it was to obtain witness testimony against others since you could not self incriminate.
Common law itself dates back to 1066 and the felony murder rule was in place at some point after that, probably very soon. It wasn't clearly stated by some commentator until much later when commentating became a thing so it is easy to point to that as the genesis of the doctrine when really it was more of an acknowledgement. Of course, I've never considered what historical period is technically "medieval," so maybe I'm off on that.

The common law also sometimes prevented the accused from calling witnesses or even testifying on their own behalf... or let the crown coerce jurors, etc. The whole thing was a mess that swung back and forth and it is terrifying that so many states (like mine) still rely on parts of it.

My state's statutes do not define what murder is and relies on the common law. Only the punishments for different types of murder are in the code. So when I'd brief some issue before our Supreme Court I'd often wind up going back to this crap. Somewhere out there is a brief where my office spent several pages arguing the definition of "the" as pertaining to some obscure jury issue.

By the time I fled appellate work I was ready to go down to the legislature with a copy of the model penal code and threaten to set myself on fire if they didn't adopt some form of it.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:15 PM   #64
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,680
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
......
My state's statutes do not define what murder is and relies on the common law. Only the punishments for different types of murder are in the code.
....
Could that be true? State law prescribes punishments for murder without defining "murder?" How does that work? How does the law distinguish among deaths resulting from murder, negligence, accident, self-defense etc.?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:37 PM   #65
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,363
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Could that be true? State law prescribes punishments for murder without defining "murder?" How does that work? How does the law distinguish among deaths resulting from murder, negligence, accident, self-defense etc.?
By using common law definitions. The code does divide murder into first and second degree by specifying different kinds of murder, but other than that it just sets out penalties. The murder/voluntary manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter distinction is not set out in the code.

W.Va. Code 61-2-1:

Murder by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, escape from lawful custody, or a felony offense of manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance as defined in article four, chapter sixty-a of this code, is murder of the first degree. All other murder is murder of the second degree.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2020, 04:58 AM   #66
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
When I was in the police in Scotland, the rules were not from PACE and I have never heard of the Reid method.

At what point would you tell the police you have an alibi? Or would you just not tell them at all?
This answer would presumably depend partly on the nature of the alibi; e.g. a single witness who might change their story versus something more difficult to manipulate.

I am still a bit curious about whether anybody thinks drawing adverse inferences from silence is a problem, given that it might influence the decision.

Incidentally, apparently there is an absolute right to silence in Scotland (i.e. no adverse inferences from silence), unlike England and Wales.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 02:25 PM   #67
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,512
I've just finished this book. It's by an American prosecutor who by sheer chance found himself administering a university law school's innocence project when he moved from law practice into academia. And yes I actually paid 16.51 for an eBook which is normally against my religion. And it was worth it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Injus.../dp/0520287959

He goes into so many different aspects of the reasons for wrongful convictions, including false confessions, that I think anyone interested in this subforum should read it.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 10:36 AM   #68
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,518
I would recommend what looks like the UK version of that book, from "The Secret Barrister";

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barr...s%2C155&sr=1-1

It is also cheaper!
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 11:35 AM   #69
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,455
Old cop joke:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be taken down, screwed around, and used in court against you.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 12:10 PM   #70
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,512
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I would recommend what looks like the UK version of that book, from "The Secret Barrister";

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barr...s%2C155&sr=1-1

It is also cheaper!

It's a different book, with a different purpose. But it's also brilliant. I have it in hardback.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 05:59 AM   #71
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I've just finished this book. It's by an American prosecutor who by sheer chance found himself administering a university law school's innocence project when he moved from law practice into academia. And yes I actually paid 16.51 for an eBook which is normally against my religion. And it was worth it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Injus.../dp/0520287959

He goes into so many different aspects of the reasons for wrongful convictions, including false confessions, that I think anyone interested in this subforum should read it.
I've started reading this and finding it very interesting. It seems to focus on cognitive factors (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance etc) that I already know about but it's fascinating to read a first-hand account from someone who worked within the system.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.