Framed For Selling Crack, Surveillance Video Helps Him Sue Police(ipvm.com)
ipvm.com
Framed For Selling Crack, Surveillance Video Helps Him Sue Police
http://ipvm.com/updates/2416
24 comments
Before recording a police officer, make sure you don't live in a "two - party consent" state, in which recording someone without his or her knowledge can be a crime.
One of my good friends, who is a civil rights attorney in Boston, represented a client who secretly used his phone to record himself getting pulled over for a speeding ticket.
He was subsequently charged with a felony for the recording.
One of my good friends, who is a civil rights attorney in Boston, represented a client who secretly used his phone to record himself getting pulled over for a speeding ticket.
He was subsequently charged with a felony for the recording.
Don't do it secretly. The Website Pinac.com documents a great deal of this. It tends to infuriate the cop, but is legal.
For best results, you record twice: once overtly, as you say, and another in secret, ideally in a place that can also observer the first camera/tape to document the potential destruction of evidence.
Wasnt there a Supreme court ruling that said it was legal to video tape public officials on public property?
it is legal to record them if it is clear you are recording them i.e. holding up a camera or phone that any reasonable person who deduce that they were being recorded. Recording someone with a hidden camera can fall under wiretapping laws if it is a two party state. The laws usually require both people to be aware they are being recorded and the fact that your camera is hidden means the second party i.e. the cop, does not know he is being recorded
> He was subsequently charged with a felony for the recording.
...For the audio portion of the recording. It's not illegal to record the video without consent.
...For the audio portion of the recording. It's not illegal to record the video without consent.
>> his lawyer will file a wrongful arrest suit against the city, seeking $500,000 from the police department, county and the village.
And how much of the $500k will be actually be paid by the guilty parties, and how much will be paid for by innocent citizenry?
And how much of the $500k will be actually be paid by the guilty parties, and how much will be paid for by innocent citizenry?
All of it will be paid by taxpayers. The sad thing is the veil is far too hard to pierce for personal responsibility to be a factor in the day to day lives of public servants.
Actually, most if not all of it will be paid by the city's insurance company -- but the city will have to pay increased premiums (or find a new insurance provider) after it's done.
Check the self insurance part of what the city has purchased. Most cities have a very large self insurance payout to keep the rates low.
Perhaps those to blame should each be made to pay 1% of any award. Hardly a devastating amount but enough to feel something for all the pain they cause.
And to think that Americans make such a big fuss about corruption in Ukraine, Russia, China, etc. They should shut up and pay attention to the extensive and systemic corruption in the USA. At least countries like Russia and China are making attempts to clean up their local corruption problems. But what is America doing to clean up its own house?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
This is a good example of the Tu quoque[1] logical fallacy. Just because America may have its own problems, or be hypocritical in some sense, does not mean that they should not criticise the international community. Hypocrisy does not invalidate the argument.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
The careers of the police and prosecutor involved should be ended, for a start. They should also be criminally prosecuted, themselves.
If we can't place reasonable trust in law enforcement... well, then, we are no longer a nation of law (imperfect as that is).
The compensation should also be at least an order of magnitude larger, as only painful (both in publicity and in resulting operating constraints) amounts of money seem to have any real effect on the larger system.
If we can't place reasonable trust in law enforcement... well, then, we are no longer a nation of law (imperfect as that is).
The compensation should also be at least an order of magnitude larger, as only painful (both in publicity and in resulting operating constraints) amounts of money seem to have any real effect on the larger system.
I've heard stories of Detectives ignoring someone's pleas to check some evidence that would prove their innocence. What incentive would a detective have in NOT checking out the person's claim? Do they just assume the person is lying and that their intel on this person is solid? In a case like this, it seem plausible from the beginning that the CI could be lying, (at least as the story is told) perhaps there are just no consequences for these detectives when getting it wrong.
It just seems like it's worth checking this guy's Surveillance Camera Footage sooner rather than later.
It just seems like it's worth checking this guy's Surveillance Camera Footage sooner rather than later.
A conviction is always better than the alternative. The job of detectives and prosecutors is, essentially, to find guilty people and convict them of committing crimes. It's pretty easy for the 'guilty' part of this job to get erased because none of the incentives really discourage the arrest or conviction of innocent people.
This is why every video surveillance system needs a secure internet connection and automatic upload offsite.
It's all about chain of custody. You don't want to be begging for access to evidence that you know exists, you want to have it, introduce it yourself and make prosecutors look stupid.
And if your connection is physically cut, then you can introduce an element of doubt.
It's all about chain of custody. You don't want to be begging for access to evidence that you know exists, you want to have it, introduce it yourself and make prosecutors look stupid.
And if your connection is physically cut, then you can introduce an element of doubt.
> "The cops said there was no need for that -- that they had me on video, and they had audio. ..."
So the cops were flat-out lying?
So the cops were flat-out lying?
The biggest problem (and there are many) is the use of informants and arrest based on information they provide. Anyone can make up a story or evidence this way. There is absolutely no way that crack could be identified in a photo. This is, of course, how the "justice" system works in the US.
The worst problem with using informants in my eyes is that the informant only has incentives to get an arrest. Could the informant leave the store and say "the guy said he didn't have any drugs"?
Police officers, at least, can be fired for being caught lying and have an incentive for peace and order in the public.
Police officers, at least, can be fired for being caught lying and have an incentive for peace and order in the public.
Another reason to have video+audio inside and out of a brick & mortar.
The other thing is to live stream a backup to somewhere out-of-reach of local & country jurisdictions. Because if you don't provide your own reliable evidence, you're going to get fucked.
The other thing is to live stream a backup to somewhere out-of-reach of local & country jurisdictions. Because if you don't provide your own reliable evidence, you're going to get fucked.
Im surprised hes suing them only for 500k..arent there any other criminal charges that he should file for this?
>My lawyer had to beg for those tapes.
Why didn't his lawyer bring up the Brady rule?
Why didn't his lawyer bring up the Brady rule?
Based on the story, this did not happen in Scotland.
No doubt they will pin all this on the informant despite the fact that the prosecutors are complete scum that thought they could get away with hiding evidence. I'm sure they knew what it showed.
In the UK, a prosecution would fall apart if police officers were cross examined and had to admit that they were hiding evidence.
The procedures for handling evidence are very strict, and police are obliged to register everything in a database (I don't know the name of the laws forcing them to do this, but it was explained to me when I was on a jury).
You then have both the officers who were on the scene and the master of records, where video evidence is used, testify about the source of the video and any processing it has been through, and so on. These prosecution witnesses are all cross-examined, and if a defense lawyer had the angle that procedure had not been followed properly (i.e. the master of records, and those investigating the case, had ignored or hidden evidence that supported the defense), the officers' testimony would fall apart and they would likely be charged themselves (or at least disciplined internally) on the basis of the evidence they gave in court under oath.
The procedures for handling evidence are very strict, and police are obliged to register everything in a database (I don't know the name of the laws forcing them to do this, but it was explained to me when I was on a jury).
You then have both the officers who were on the scene and the master of records, where video evidence is used, testify about the source of the video and any processing it has been through, and so on. These prosecution witnesses are all cross-examined, and if a defense lawyer had the angle that procedure had not been followed properly (i.e. the master of records, and those investigating the case, had ignored or hidden evidence that supported the defense), the officers' testimony would fall apart and they would likely be charged themselves (or at least disciplined internally) on the basis of the evidence they gave in court under oath.
My thoughts exactly. We don't know if police acted bad or they just did their job, but prosecutor is criminal for sure. He had the tapes, he knew defendant was talking about it, so most probably he saw it and knew what happened. So, either knowingly or by criminal negligence he tried to send in jail innocent person.
I know a lot of people are understandably concerned about surveillance video, but this is a case where if the guy did not have it, he would have been going to jail, probably for a long time.
People are understandably concerned about surveillance video because it inherently favours the police. If this was a police officer framing him, chances are the video would have mysteriously been "lost" or "damaged" whilst it was in police custody.
So back it up in the cloud - confiscating the hardware would mean nothing. Maybe the guy should have paid someone to help him install the system...
That is why you should have a real time or near real time offsite encrypted backup...
I am concerned about surveillance video not under my direct control, but instead under government control
surveillance video of my own property which I have direct access to, can encrypt and protect, is not a problem.
surveillance video of my own property which I have direct access to, can encrypt and protect, is not a problem.
This is private surveillance, which is fine. The problem is not surveillance, but power concentrating in a single entity.
Thank God in Germany the prosecution is required to make all evidence available to the defense lawyers, including material which can counter the prosecutor's claims.
That's also supposed to be the law in the U.S., especially for material that could counter the prosecutor's claims or otherwise help the defendant. If a defendant discovers material was withheld, that can be a basis for overturning a conviction later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland
However it's rare for a prosecutor to be personally held liable for withholding evidence, unless it was something really egregious where it can be proven they did it on purpose.
However it's rare for a prosecutor to be personally held liable for withholding evidence, unless it was something really egregious where it can be proven they did it on purpose.
> personally held liable
Not even a bar complaint?
Not even a bar complaint?
You should invent bets. If the prosecutor bets the evidence is useless and it the defendants gets the opposite, we unveil the evidence and if the outcomes turns over, the prosecutor gets double the penalty the defendant would have taken.
The upside is, it won't affect trials where the accused is guilty. But it will affect trials where the prosecutor is.
The upside is, it won't affect trials where the accused is guilty. But it will affect trials where the prosecutor is.
Hold government officials personally liable for their actions? Impossible! That would make us into some sort of anarchy, not civilized society, wouldn't it?
Please tell me you're joking and don't really want to see all major criminals go free because nobody will risk prosecuting them. Or do you think you live in a fairy tale world where there is only ever doubt about evidence when the accused is innocent?
Exactly the rhetoric which leads to the unfairness of the system.
Yes, if there's a single doubt about the evidence, you _must not_ frame the person.
We're talking here about the justice system refusing to return evidence which could help the defense, and the accused was found innocent. It's not like they acted well anyway. Tampering with jail time _must be_ a high pressure job for those who execute it. No mistake allowed.
Yes, if there's a single doubt about the evidence, you _must not_ frame the person.
We're talking here about the justice system refusing to return evidence which could help the defense, and the accused was found innocent. It's not like they acted well anyway. Tampering with jail time _must be_ a high pressure job for those who execute it. No mistake allowed.
In Germany we have a whole different problem of judges, who should be neutral, but often do the prosecutor's work in a trial. In trials it often boils down to defendant vs prosecutor and judge - whereas it should be defendant vs prosecutor watched over by a neutral judge.
How neutral the judge is depends often on his political alignment, the alignment of the defendant, possible stereotypes that might apply to a defendant and of course if there is some reputation gain for a judge in case of a conviction.
While in theory the system of a neutral judge is good in practice it's pretty flawed because no single human can really be neutral.
I wish we had a jury system in Germany because that way you at least need 12 people to fail instead of just one - who might have hidden motives for a conviction - for someone to get wrongfully convicted.
How neutral the judge is depends often on his political alignment, the alignment of the defendant, possible stereotypes that might apply to a defendant and of course if there is some reputation gain for a judge in case of a conviction.
While in theory the system of a neutral judge is good in practice it's pretty flawed because no single human can really be neutral.
I wish we had a jury system in Germany because that way you at least need 12 people to fail instead of just one - who might have hidden motives for a conviction - for someone to get wrongfully convicted.
Plus, 'fruit of the poisonous tree' evidence is allowed in Germany. Meaning that, if evidence against you was collected illegally, it can still be used.
I never got why illegally collected evidence is not permitted. As long as it's not fabricated.
It should be allowed but the person who collected the evidence illegally should have separate trial and punishment for that.
It should be allowed but the person who collected the evidence illegally should have separate trial and punishment for that.
just think about it this way if illegally collected evidence was allowed at trial police could do whatever they wanted. If police illegally search you home there is no criminal penalty for the police, at most it is a civil rights violation which can only be challenged in court. This means the police could just search ever single house in a crime ridden neighbourhood and arrest everyone who had anything even remotely illegal. Imagine having to live in a poor neighbourhood where once a week the police kicked in your door and searched the house. It is already getting pretty bad for cops searching every vehicle of a minority they stop
It is not permitted because the “separate trial and punishment” never happens.
[deleted]
That's how is is supposed to work in the US too. However like everywhere things do not always work as they are supposed too.
The Grand Jury mentioned is the article is not the actual trial but a pre-trial procedure to decide whether to even charge the suspect with a crime. Special rules apply that favor the prosecution. If the grand jury decides to charge then there will be a trial with normal rules to decide guilt.
The Grand Jury mentioned is the article is not the actual trial but a pre-trial procedure to decide whether to even charge the suspect with a crime. Special rules apply that favor the prosecution. If the grand jury decides to charge then there will be a trial with normal rules to decide guilt.
By the way, if you get called for Federal grand jury service, you need to serve one day per week for at least 18 months! You get $40-$50 for each day. It is extremely hard to make an excuse to get out of it.
EDIT: New link.
http://alllifeislocal.blogspot.com/2010/09/federal-grand-jur...
EDIT: New link.
http://alllifeislocal.blogspot.com/2010/09/federal-grand-jur...
That's required in Austria too, but even in high-profile cases it's not being done and if it's proven that evidence was hidden by the prosecution, there are no consequences.
How good is the system at ensuring this happens? I'd be impressed if they manage to stop prosecutors from cheating.
Pretty good at it, I can't recall any major scandal in the last few years. Suppression of evidence (regardless who the actor is, be it prosecutor or a 3rd party) is punishable by law (http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/274.html). However I was not able to find the possible sentences (though, I think, it includes jail time).
There's no major scandal because it is expected, it is practiced with regularity, and it is not punished when it happens.
Some friends of mine were setup by Austin Police Department undercover officers...the protest they intended to participate in would have led to misdemeanor charges. The undercover officers encouraged use of, and provided, dragon sleeves (a type of lockbox to make it harder to separate protestors who are in a sit-in or lockdown of some sort), which led to felony charges for seven of the protestors.
It was entirely a lucky break that one of the undercover officers was outed (a friend of a friend recognized him from school and knew he was a cop), and with that information the lawyer was able to request all the records that showed how things went down. Had that lucky break not happened, those kids would still be in jail today and saddled with felonies.
The prosecuting attorney tried to make the case that his Houston officers didn't know about it, and that it wasn't relevant to the case and that evidence shouldn't be brought up. The judge, thankfully, disagreed.
In my experience, cops lie, prosecuting attorneys lie, and when they lie they face no consequences.
The officers overseeing this case, and the district attorney prosecuting this, should be out of a job or, better, in jail for trying to destroy a man's life. But, to them it's just another day. They got caught this time, but dozens of others weren't lucky enough to have surveillance footage proving their innocence.
I don't have a very high opinion of police or the justice system, as you may have guessed by now. But, I think it's important to stop living under the illusion that this is an isolated incident and that "most cops are good people".
Some friends of mine were setup by Austin Police Department undercover officers...the protest they intended to participate in would have led to misdemeanor charges. The undercover officers encouraged use of, and provided, dragon sleeves (a type of lockbox to make it harder to separate protestors who are in a sit-in or lockdown of some sort), which led to felony charges for seven of the protestors.
It was entirely a lucky break that one of the undercover officers was outed (a friend of a friend recognized him from school and knew he was a cop), and with that information the lawyer was able to request all the records that showed how things went down. Had that lucky break not happened, those kids would still be in jail today and saddled with felonies.
The prosecuting attorney tried to make the case that his Houston officers didn't know about it, and that it wasn't relevant to the case and that evidence shouldn't be brought up. The judge, thankfully, disagreed.
In my experience, cops lie, prosecuting attorneys lie, and when they lie they face no consequences.
The officers overseeing this case, and the district attorney prosecuting this, should be out of a job or, better, in jail for trying to destroy a man's life. But, to them it's just another day. They got caught this time, but dozens of others weren't lucky enough to have surveillance footage proving their innocence.
I don't have a very high opinion of police or the justice system, as you may have guessed by now. But, I think it's important to stop living under the illusion that this is an isolated incident and that "most cops are good people".
I think most cops and prosecutors are good people. "Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
What about Lothar König (http://www.dnn-online.de/dresden/web/dresden-nachrichten/det... - sorry, I found no english article), or the NSU files (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/intelligence-age...) that were destroyed just in time (though that wasn't the police, but the federal domestic intelligence agency)?
Indeed, the Lothar König affair is something I had forgotten.
And the NSU is an entirely different beast of a story - personally I think it is one or more blacker-than-black ops gone wrong and the intelligence service fucked up to properly cover their traces.
And the NSU is an entirely different beast of a story - personally I think it is one or more blacker-than-black ops gone wrong and the intelligence service fucked up to properly cover their traces.
I can't recall any major scandal in the last few years
Lack of no major scandal means either: (a) The system is fair and basically works as advertised or (b) The system is so massively corrupt that it happens often enough, but that information is hidden from public view.
Lack of no major scandal means either: (a) The system is fair and basically works as advertised or (b) The system is so massively corrupt that it happens often enough, but that information is hidden from public view.
I suppose that there is an incentive for each of the bad actors in this scenario. What do the informant and the prosecutor get out of a successful conviction? Money? Reputation?
Informants often face trumped-up charges. Often without basic legal guidance, many of them become fully intimidated by authority (police, FBI...). Become an informant or face an exorbitant amount of your life trapped in our cage. OK? Good. You'll be wearing this wire. This pressure often results in people being intimidated to the point of risking their lives merely so forces can pursue "higher-ups" in a chain. In an abysmal, draconian, dangerous game that is a state's drug war, I needn't mention how risky being a "rat" could be. Many of the informants/victims are naive. They do not know their potential rights or seem to have no better alternatives. It's tragic.[1]
There are other types of informants, obviously. I'm not referring to informants who act upon true desire and commitment to "truth" and not threats. I don't know the motives of the guy in the article. Many convicted people or people facing charges need no other motive to fuck over others, lie, or help authority other than the chance of getting a candy bar, a day of sunny adventure, or watching the world burn.
[1] Countless stories like this roll on over the years. I can't remember, but This American Life might've had a segment about the twisted process of churning out the enslaved helpers they call informants. Example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/get-busted-for-mar...
There are other types of informants, obviously. I'm not referring to informants who act upon true desire and commitment to "truth" and not threats. I don't know the motives of the guy in the article. Many convicted people or people facing charges need no other motive to fuck over others, lie, or help authority other than the chance of getting a candy bar, a day of sunny adventure, or watching the world burn.
[1] Countless stories like this roll on over the years. I can't remember, but This American Life might've had a segment about the twisted process of churning out the enslaved helpers they call informants. Example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/get-busted-for-mar...
The prosecutor at least gets reputation for convictions. The informant might get some pocket money in the process. Both might get additional "motivation" from corporations running privatized prisons ...
>>privatized prisons
The fact that these even exist is disgusting.
What are the board-meetings like in this kind of company?
"Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that."
I wish someone could "accidentally" leak the discussions that go on with execs in charge of those places.
The fact that these even exist is disgusting.
What are the board-meetings like in this kind of company?
"Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that."
I wish someone could "accidentally" leak the discussions that go on with execs in charge of those places.
Lest you think that they are the source of the problems, but prison officer unions are also in favour of more crimes & longer sentences for similar selfish reasons.
> "Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that."
Sounds about right...
Sounds about right...
The informant may be a person with charges, and helping the police with a bigger bust may lessen his punishment.
He thankfully had independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the charge was false.
In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence they intend to use against you; any other evidence, including exculpatory evidence can (and is) withheld - it's up to you to find that by yourself.
Your only safeguard is the requirement for corroboration - a second piece of evidence to confirm what is suggested by another; in this case the informant's pictures would be considered corroboration of his claim.
The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction.
What could possibly go wrong ?
In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence they intend to use against you; any other evidence, including exculpatory evidence can (and is) withheld - it's up to you to find that by yourself.
Your only safeguard is the requirement for corroboration - a second piece of evidence to confirm what is suggested by another; in this case the informant's pictures would be considered corroboration of his claim.
The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction.
What could possibly go wrong ?
But if they've seized the surveillance tapes that you made can you get those somehow?
And if the evidence is as clear as these tapes apparently were why would they even continue with a prosecution? They must know that the tapes are going to be released at some point?
It shows the importance of off-site backup. Sending the video to an off site store would have allowed his legal team to get access much earlier.
You're right about the Scottish situation being scary.
And if the evidence is as clear as these tapes apparently were why would they even continue with a prosecution? They must know that the tapes are going to be released at some point?
It shows the importance of off-site backup. Sending the video to an off site store would have allowed his legal team to get access much earlier.
You're right about the Scottish situation being scary.
The situation of Scotland removing a requirement that no other legal system has is "scary"?
Why?
Why?
Removing the need for evidence means more miscarriages of justice.
In the article seven other cases are now being looked at because they might be wrong. That's a lot of time and money chasing innocent people, and not chasing guilty people. That's a lot of goodwill lost. Since we are policed with our consent they need all the goodwill they can get.
In the article seven other cases are now being looked at because they might be wrong. That's a lot of time and money chasing innocent people, and not chasing guilty people. That's a lot of goodwill lost. Since we are policed with our consent they need all the goodwill they can get.
But it doesn't remove the need for evidence. It actually allows more evidence to be produced and weighed.
Do you have an argument for why the this corroboration rule, that no other country has, is actually a good thing? I'm willing to be convinced if there's a reasonable argument in favour.
Do you have an argument for why the this corroboration rule, that no other country has, is actually a good thing? I'm willing to be convinced if there's a reasonable argument in favour.
Corroboration is a safeguard against flawed accusations being given more credence than they deserve. There needs to be something to support an allegation other than simply 'me' accusing 'you' of a criminal act.
While this is perhaps not called 'corroboration' in the way it is enshrined in current Scottish legislation, it is generally required - indeed, the Grand Jury in this case are, as I understand it, tasked with considering the allegation and any evidence the police have in order to consider if the allegation has merit before the case can proceed. To my mind, this sounds like a corroboration requirement by a different name.
While Scotland has it's share of miscarriages of justice, corroboration does act as a safeguard against some of the circumstances where a miscarriage can happen. The concentration on various 'straw men' - typically involving cases of uncorroborated claims of sexual assaults as these are highly emotive - in the debate is a disservice which is setting Scotland up to become little more than a series of kangaroo courts (in my opinion).
In the particular cases of [extremely rare] uncorroborated sexual assaults, convictions are often obtainable via the Moorov Doctrine where the same accused has often engaged in multiple independent acts which, as a whole, are considered corroboration. [In "American": the same MO points to the single suspect.]
[Sexual assaults often have forensic evidence as corroboration so unlike the emotive arguments put forward, they do not actually always end up as he-said, she-said credibility competitions.]
While this is perhaps not called 'corroboration' in the way it is enshrined in current Scottish legislation, it is generally required - indeed, the Grand Jury in this case are, as I understand it, tasked with considering the allegation and any evidence the police have in order to consider if the allegation has merit before the case can proceed. To my mind, this sounds like a corroboration requirement by a different name.
While Scotland has it's share of miscarriages of justice, corroboration does act as a safeguard against some of the circumstances where a miscarriage can happen. The concentration on various 'straw men' - typically involving cases of uncorroborated claims of sexual assaults as these are highly emotive - in the debate is a disservice which is setting Scotland up to become little more than a series of kangaroo courts (in my opinion).
In the particular cases of [extremely rare] uncorroborated sexual assaults, convictions are often obtainable via the Moorov Doctrine where the same accused has often engaged in multiple independent acts which, as a whole, are considered corroboration. [In "American": the same MO points to the single suspect.]
[Sexual assaults often have forensic evidence as corroboration so unlike the emotive arguments put forward, they do not actually always end up as he-said, she-said credibility competitions.]
Because the prosecution is allowed to withhold any evidence that is in favor of the accused. If THAT were removed as well, and could be enforced, then the corroboration requirement would be unnecessary.
Easy example... in the US, a policeman's word is often enough to cite you for breaking a traffic law. In Scotland, you would need two policemen, or one policeman and a camera, or some other combination of >1 sources of evidence.
Policemen claiming something is evidence. If only one evidence is needed then it will be as in US. And that's scary.
Have you heard about the difference between the English adversarial system and the inquisitorial system ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
It reminds me of that scene in "In the name of the father" which shows how one of the lawyer got access to some exculpatory evidences on a blunder from the "archivist". That and the "torture works to extract information" mentality pictured a frightening dystopia. Except it was not a dystopia and actually took place and still does in some part of the world.
Some part? It's very common in EVERY country, including the best of Western democracies. This very case happened in New York, not some third world dictatorship -- and tons of similar things happen all over.
The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction.
I seriously doubt that. Please cite a reliable source or an original document for this, I suspect you've misunderstood a proposal and drastically exaggerated what it means.
I seriously doubt that. Please cite a reliable source or an original document for this, I suspect you've misunderstood a proposal and drastically exaggerated what it means.
GP appears to misunderstand to what "corroboration" applies (evidence, not allegations), but he's not completely wrong, and at any rate an explanation is not hard to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law
Here's a BBC article but it has been discussed frequently in the Scottish press. Google is your friend.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2573...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2573...
In France and Belgium the investigation is done by a neutral judge (known as juge d'instruction).
It usually prevents these kinds of misgivings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
It usually prevents these kinds of misgivings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
Not for long though. Due to European law to homogenize the judiciary systems across Europe, investigating judges are on their way out, and we're to go towards a purely oppositional system in the next few years (I don't know the right terms to plug into Google to get a supporting link, sorry). I'm expecting we'll see huge problems during the transitional years.
A judge by definition impartial/neutral, that's the point of a judge.
That's frightening that France and Belgium have the need of a special judge called a neutral judge.
That's frightening that France and Belgium have the need of a special judge called a neutral judge.
It's because in France and Belgium we have a category, called "Magistrat" that contains both the judges (independent, neutral etc.) and the prosecutors (neither independent, nor neutral). So we often discuss it saying that judges are neutral magistrates. Sometimes this is lost in translation :).
Edit : And the Juge d'Instruction IS a special judge, because he doesn't judge anything, his job is to head all investigations in serious and complicated cases. Normally that would be the prosecutors job... so it's an independent and trully neutral man (a judge) doing a prosecutor job, in the interest of the accusation and the defense, at the same time. That's quite special.
Edit : And the Juge d'Instruction IS a special judge, because he doesn't judge anything, his job is to head all investigations in serious and complicated cases. Normally that would be the prosecutors job... so it's an independent and trully neutral man (a judge) doing a prosecutor job, in the interest of the accusation and the defense, at the same time. That's quite special.
They're all neutral, indeed. It was a pleonasm. My bad.
It would be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.
Obviously the use of compensated informants would be prohibited as well.
Obviously the use of compensated informants would be prohibited as well.
[deleted]
This is frighteningly normal.
$500,000 won't make prosecutors suddenly interested in veering away from extinguishing people to win. I doubt $500 billion-with-a-B would scratch beyond the surface of flawed architecture.
The United States' criminal justice system, as a particular hodgepodge of incentives, disincentives, esoteric proceedings, privileged access, violent sentencing, plea pressure, and power-tripping careerism -- irrespective of cruel laws -- is a deeply failed model in the context of ethics. It's a very 'successful' model in other contexts. Before anyone replies with comparative excuses or appeals to historical precedence, see this. I, too, agree that US "justice" is far more ethical than the "justice" of North Korea and several other fundamentalist countries. Great. I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is similarly ethically primitive. Rejoice for a second in shared misery.
$500,000 won't make prosecutors suddenly interested in veering away from extinguishing people to win. I doubt $500 billion-with-a-B would scratch beyond the surface of flawed architecture.
The United States' criminal justice system, as a particular hodgepodge of incentives, disincentives, esoteric proceedings, privileged access, violent sentencing, plea pressure, and power-tripping careerism -- irrespective of cruel laws -- is a deeply failed model in the context of ethics. It's a very 'successful' model in other contexts. Before anyone replies with comparative excuses or appeals to historical precedence, see this. I, too, agree that US "justice" is far more ethical than the "justice" of North Korea and several other fundamentalist countries. Great. I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is similarly ethically primitive. Rejoice for a second in shared misery.
> billion-with-a-big-B
+1
> I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is ethically primitive.
I don't have data about my own country, but I can tell you about fundamental differences between France and Commonwealth law structures:
- Lying is only a fault in Commonwealth countries. In France, people are allowed to lie for their own defense and the girlfriend/wife too. It changes heaps. The policeman has to prove the crime, because proving that the person has been inconsistent is such and such answers won't lead anywhere. Of course, like in US, helping the police is a positive point at the trial. The "allowed to lie for your own defense" rule seems heaps more ethical to me, because it's so much more aligned with human's behavior.
- In France, you only get convicted for the highest crime and charges don't add up. If you rob a bank, use a gun without license and kill the security guard, you will get convicted for only the worst of those crimes. That also changes everything: Of course in US you use the "sum" system to frame gangsters whose business you didn't succeed to unveil, but it also means that an almost-non-criminal can be thrown for life on a few actions he did to cover a mistake.
- In France, you can plead guilty, but the crime still has to be proven, which is different from the Us[1]. I think pleading guilty is a fundamental flaw: Under the excuse of saving public money, the poorest citizen who can't afford the defense to prove their case would bargain for a crime they didn't commit.
- In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial.
There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them. And, yes, flaws too.
[1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage Sorry for the French, but the English page of wikipedia doesn't say enough.
+1
> I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is ethically primitive.
I don't have data about my own country, but I can tell you about fundamental differences between France and Commonwealth law structures:
- Lying is only a fault in Commonwealth countries. In France, people are allowed to lie for their own defense and the girlfriend/wife too. It changes heaps. The policeman has to prove the crime, because proving that the person has been inconsistent is such and such answers won't lead anywhere. Of course, like in US, helping the police is a positive point at the trial. The "allowed to lie for your own defense" rule seems heaps more ethical to me, because it's so much more aligned with human's behavior.
- In France, you only get convicted for the highest crime and charges don't add up. If you rob a bank, use a gun without license and kill the security guard, you will get convicted for only the worst of those crimes. That also changes everything: Of course in US you use the "sum" system to frame gangsters whose business you didn't succeed to unveil, but it also means that an almost-non-criminal can be thrown for life on a few actions he did to cover a mistake.
- In France, you can plead guilty, but the crime still has to be proven, which is different from the Us[1]. I think pleading guilty is a fundamental flaw: Under the excuse of saving public money, the poorest citizen who can't afford the defense to prove their case would bargain for a crime they didn't commit.
- In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial.
There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them. And, yes, flaws too.
[1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage Sorry for the French, but the English page of wikipedia doesn't say enough.
We can be proud of that. In France we have a great justice. And not only for criminal cases but also in other fields like for instance for the business law. On top of that the Supreme Court of France always has and acts with a sharp ethics definition.
> In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial.
Plus you have 2 independent criminal investigations. One against you and one for you. Everything done by the police. Where in the US you have only one Against you and you have to prove that you are innocent by yourself (so by paying private investigators).
But if only we would have the spirit of entrepreneurship from the SV. And I am not even talking about the open source, the technologies, or the engineers freedom to innovate: an innovation starting right from the bottom...
> In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial.
Plus you have 2 independent criminal investigations. One against you and one for you. Everything done by the police. Where in the US you have only one Against you and you have to prove that you are innocent by yourself (so by paying private investigators).
But if only we would have the spirit of entrepreneurship from the SV. And I am not even talking about the open source, the technologies, or the engineers freedom to innovate: an innovation starting right from the bottom...
>Plus you have 2 independent criminal investigations. One against you and one for you. Everything done by the police. Where in the US you have only one Against you and you have to prove that you are innocent by yourself (so by paying private investigators).
Omg srsly? We need this... right now.
Omg srsly? We need this... right now.
Actually, it's not exactly two investigations. In criminal cases, if you face at least 10 years in jail, the investigation is not headed by the prosecution or the police, it's a special judge, who's actually a sitting independent judge. And his job is to head an investigation, seeking both proofs for you or against you (with the help of the police, who executes his orders and requests), and then presenting everything to the prosecution and the defense lawyers before going into trial. So because his job is not to convict you, like the prosecution, his investigation is actually much more neutral, with some exceptions.
It's quite a good system in theory, but it has some quirks.
It's quite a good system in theory, but it has some quirks.
> We can be proud of that
Good thing? Bad thing? Who knows? http://hany.rashwan.com/good-thing-bad-thing-who-knows Let's say we currently have an optimist faith in our system.
> if only we would have the spirit of entrepreneurship from the SV
Out of scope here - but you tickle my most favourite topic: I don't believe Frenches are unentrepreneurs by nature, but we can discuss it on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7088467
Good thing? Bad thing? Who knows? http://hany.rashwan.com/good-thing-bad-thing-who-knows Let's say we currently have an optimist faith in our system.
> if only we would have the spirit of entrepreneurship from the SV
Out of scope here - but you tickle my most favourite topic: I don't believe Frenches are unentrepreneurs by nature, but we can discuss it on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7088467
> Good thing? Bad thing? Who knows? http://hany.rashwan.com/good-thing-bad-thing-who-knows Let's say we currently have an optimist faith in our system.
Yes it reminds me this : http://youtu.be/B2L1-TgfKb4 But I said it because I know French lawyers and judges. And I know the basics of the French business law with jurisprudence cases.
> Out of scope here.
Yes out of scope. I didn't see this post but I just wanted to show pros and cons between the US and France.
There is a community but it's small. People here see companies as something being big. It is more about management, hierarchy, and to start from the bottom by having a career. The company spirit is dominated by styles like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM or HP. Even in a small company you find this spirit rather than a startup spirit like you have in the SV.
Yes it reminds me this : http://youtu.be/B2L1-TgfKb4 But I said it because I know French lawyers and judges. And I know the basics of the French business law with jurisprudence cases.
> Out of scope here.
Yes out of scope. I didn't see this post but I just wanted to show pros and cons between the US and France.
There is a community but it's small. People here see companies as something being big. It is more about management, hierarchy, and to start from the bottom by having a career. The company spirit is dominated by styles like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM or HP. Even in a small company you find this spirit rather than a startup spirit like you have in the SV.
I (someone from Ireland) keep hearing the French police are pretty strict though, and you don't want to mess with them.
Maybe it's the Irish cultural thing of not taking many things seriously which applies mostly to police as well.
Maybe it's the Irish cultural thing of not taking many things seriously which applies mostly to police as well.
Yes but fortunately it is only with policemen who give tickets in the streets, roads...
Yes that it was it. The French road police. Here's a blog post from the Irish AA about driving in France: http://www.theaa.ie/AA/Ezine/AA-Ezine-May-2013/Driving-in-Fr...
Even so people who are used to dealing with a sympathetic Irish Garda [Police force] are in for a rude surprise if they expect the same in France. Local police can be extremely unsympathetic and they make no allowance for visiting tourists.
Even so people who are used to dealing with a sympathetic Irish Garda [Police force] are in for a rude surprise if they expect the same in France. Local police can be extremely unsympathetic and they make no allowance for visiting tourists.
The same can be said about pretty much any country. This article is an opinion and isn't backed by examples or facts. If anything to be said about French roads, we have automated speed controls and it's a heavy burden on our lower-wealth population.
I wouldn't imagine a police force with a reputation to be lenient. Is it like this for the Irish Guarda? Do they still succeed in keeping the death rates low?
I wouldn't imagine a police force with a reputation to be lenient. Is it like this for the Irish Guarda? Do they still succeed in keeping the death rates low?
This article is an opinion and isn't backed by examples or facts
Yes it's an opinion piece. But it's an opinion piece from a large motorist organisation, which gives information about motoring and travelling. France is very close to Ireland and many people travel there, so their recommendations are probably true.
Do they still succeed in keeping the death rates low?
Yes. We have had a massive reduction in deaths on the roads in the last few years, down to 162 in 2012[1], down from about 415 in 2000[2]. The Wikipedia list of road deaths per year[3] also shows Ireland scoring lower than France for various road death metrics
[1] http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuri... [2] http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=10717&Lang=1 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
Yes it's an opinion piece. But it's an opinion piece from a large motorist organisation, which gives information about motoring and travelling. France is very close to Ireland and many people travel there, so their recommendations are probably true.
Do they still succeed in keeping the death rates low?
Yes. We have had a massive reduction in deaths on the roads in the last few years, down to 162 in 2012[1], down from about 415 in 2000[2]. The Wikipedia list of road deaths per year[3] also shows Ireland scoring lower than France for various road death metrics
[1] http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuri... [2] http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=10717&Lang=1 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
I appreciate the reply.
> There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them.
That's not opposed to me. There are different systems, indeed. :) There are positive ethical traits lurking in the corners of even the harshest of places. Focusing on flaws is often seen as excluding or overlooking positives. To the contrary, it's one and the same to me.
> There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them.
That's not opposed to me. There are different systems, indeed. :) There are positive ethical traits lurking in the corners of even the harshest of places. Focusing on flaws is often seen as excluding or overlooking positives. To the contrary, it's one and the same to me.
>I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is similarly ethically primitive.
Huh? Who said that? There are far better justice systems in some european countries -- and far more pragmatism than puritanism in pursuing the spirit of the law too.
Huh? Who said that? There are far better justice systems in some european countries -- and far more pragmatism than puritanism in pursuing the spirit of the law too.
I read stories like this, and I believe the line between China and the US blurs more and more. This is truly a crazy system.
The Chinese legal system is completely different form western systems.
Here's a "This american life" episode which gives you a nice overview: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/448/a...
Also this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs
Here's a "This american life" episode which gives you a nice overview: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/448/a...
Also this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs
It's more the idea that prosecutors are using their power to hold evidence and resources against innocent defendants (you're innocent until proven guilty). Worse, they're planting "evidence" to get their way - this isn't a land of the free.
Even though I agree that China and the US are still different in their justice systems, I believe the lines between them are blurring, and eventually we will find it hard to distinguish the difference. Or maybe, the US has always been like that (unjust), but just really good at marketing (via Hollywood)
Even though I agree that China and the US are still different in their justice systems, I believe the lines between them are blurring, and eventually we will find it hard to distinguish the difference. Or maybe, the US has always been like that (unjust), but just really good at marketing (via Hollywood)
What is so interesting about this? It's not like the NSA helped to man to clean his name. The cameras were his private surveillance of his private property, I understand. That's what the surveillance is for, to provide proofs.
Fortunately (heh), we've carefully defined obstruction of justice in the USA so that it doesn't seem to apply to prosecutors who stare right at exculpatory evidence and then try to hide it to pervert justice anyway. I'm inclined to stop calling them "prosecutors" and take the advice of my spellcheck when I mistyped it and call them "persecutors".
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice