Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

Dahn: Sep 4, 2004

FAUXTON posted:

Is there a section (b) where the cop is legally empowered to accept bribes?

I know I have given Montana State Troopers cash money on the side of the road for a speeding ticket.

I assume it was legal, I never heard anything more about the ticket so I was happy.

# ? Aug 26, 2015 21:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 05:30

William Bear: Oct 26, 2012; "That's what they all say!"

The Baltimore Sun has a detailed article regarding the future of the Freddie Gray case and the actions city and state government and other groups are taking:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-prepare-20150826-story.html

quote:

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Wednesday that city officials are preparing for protests as court hearings ramp up in the Freddie Gray case by coordinating with law enforcement agencies around the state, upgrading riot gear and conducting crowd-control training.

The mayor also said officials plan to hold educational sessions in schools to explain the justice system to students.

Over the next two weeks, court hearings will be held to consider several key issues in the Gray case, including whether charges should be dismissed, whether Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby should be recused and whether the trials should be moved out of Baltimore. The first is scheduled for Wednesday.

Rawlings-Blake, who has defended the city's response to the unrest and rioting that followed Gray's death in April, stressed that most protests over police brutality have been nonviolent.

"We've identified potential flash points over the next year, and the motions hearing is one of those," Rawlings-Blake said. "While we're preparing, I don't want people to lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. The challenge is when a few people hijack the peaceful protest."

Gray, 25, died after suffering a severe spinal cord injury while in police custody. Six officers involved in his arrest and transport in a police van have been charged with crimes ranging from murder to assault. All of the officers have pleaded not guilty.

On Thursday, Baltimore police plan to meet with law enforcement agencies from around Maryland to discuss the potential for unrest during the hearings.

Col. Charles Kohler, a spokesman for the Maryland National Guard, confirmed that senior military leaders plan to attend the meeting. The Guard, which deployed in Baltimore to help restore order after the riots, recently carried out civil disturbance training at a facility in Edgewood.

Others attending the meeting include top police officials from Baltimore County, Carroll County, Anne Arundel County and the Maryland State Police, those agencies said.

T.J. Smith, chief spokesman for the Baltimore Police Department, said the department is hosting the meeting to discuss law enforcement preparedness, including during the court hearings in the Gray case. The meeting is "one of many" held in the months since the unrest, both with law enforcement and other groups, he said.

"We've met with the chiefs of each college in Baltimore. We've met with community leaders and church groups and other community activists, all in an effort to continue our community outreach and engagement, to have a plan as we get closer to some significant dates involved in the trial of the six officers," Smith said.

"This is communication and making sure that everyone who needs to have a seat at the table and be involved is involved," he said. "We hope we're preparing for no reason, but we need to prepare, and that's the responsible thing to do for public safety."

Also Thursday, Rawlings-Blake, interim Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, Schools CEO Gregory Thornton and law enforcement representatives from the Maryland Transit Administration and City Schools Police plan to announce "improvements and changes" made over the summer regarding students' safety. The mayor asked those agencies to improve coordination and communication after the unrest.

Rawlings-Blake said city and school officials are planning educational sessions during the first week of school, which begins Monday. The idea is not only to explain the justice system but to temper young people's expectations of what might happen during the motions hearing, she said.

Rioting, looting and arson broke out across Baltimore on April 27, hours after Gray's funeral. More than 200 people were arrested during the worst of the rioting, with more than 400 businesses damaged and more than 100 police officers injured.

The city has conducted increased training and purchased new riot gear since the unrest, the mayor said.

"I'm not worried about protests, because when Baltimore people show up to protest, they do it in a way that allows people to focus on the message," Rawlings-Blake said. "We're focused on those individuals who wish to hijack or exploit the challenges we have in Baltimore � that they're not able to disrupt our communities."

Councilman Brandon Scott, vice chairman of City Council's public safety committee, said Baltimore communities and businesses also need to prepare.

"I want people to understand: You can never be totally prepared for something like that," Scott said. "We are better prepared today than we were in April, but more importantly, it's not just government that needs to be more prepared. Anyone who calls themselves a leader � a business leader, community leader, faith leader � has to find a way to help."

Scott said he plans to continue visiting schools and community groups to talk about the judicial process, and what next week's court action means and doesn't mean.

"We have to do a good job explaining to people exactly what's happening," Scott said. "You can never tell them what the outcome will be, but you can help them have a better idea about what the possibilities are."

Scott said it's also important that the police force � including school-based officers � be prepared with the appropriate equipment, such as up-to-date riot gear.

The Baltimore school system has declined to buy new riot gear that union officials have requested for the school police force, which had one officer injured during the riots.

According to a recent email obtained by The Baltimore Sun, the city schools police union made a request for riot gear that was up to industry standard. In the request, Sgt. Clyde Boatwright said that his officers have been issued "non-FEMA certified, sub-standard riot helmets in the wake of civil unrest."

"The helmets that have been issued will not sustain a number of the chemical agents and various projectiles that were used against police during the civil disturbances," he wrote.

In an interview, Boatwright said that about one dozen school police responded to Mondawmin Mall on April 27, where the unrest started with youths engaging in a violent standoff with police. School police officers were not equipped with helmets and shields, he said.

"We were fortunate to not have more officers injured," he said.

With the pending hearings, Boatwright said, school police officers � who have citywide jurisdiction � were concerned about their safety should similar events unfold.

"No one expected what happened on April 27 to occur, and no one was prepared for that," said Boatwright, who responded to Mondawmin. "In the event that some sort of unrest took place again, we wanted to be in possession of the proper equipment."

City school officials said additional riot gear won't be necessary.

"We're not anticipating school police being on the front line," spokeswoman Edie House-Foster said.

I'm unsure what to think about all this. Is the focus on riot gear appropriate? What exactly will be said to students in schools?

# ? Aug 27, 2015 06:02

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

William Bear posted:

The Baltimore Sun has a detailed article regarding the future of the Freddie Gray case and the actions city and state government and other groups are taking:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-prepare-20150826-story.html

I'm unsure what to think about all this. Is the focus on riot gear appropriate? What exactly will be said to students in schools?

"Pull up your pants and just do everything they say."

# ? Aug 27, 2015 06:56

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

Fun fact of the day, more than 25% of the people exonerated by DNA evidence confessed to the crime they didn't commit.

Bonus fact: 31 of the 300 people the Innocence Project has gotten exonerated actually pled guilty to the crime they didn't commit because they had lovely attorneys.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/when-the-innocent-plead-guilty

# ? Aug 27, 2015 12:58

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

PostNouveau posted:

Fun fact of the day, more than 25% of the people exonerated by DNA evidence confessed to the crime they didn't commit.

Bonus fact: 31 of the 300 people the Innocence Project has gotten exonerated actually pled guilty to the crime they didn't commit because they had lovely attorneys.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/when-the-innocent-plead-guilty

"false confession or incriminating statement."

Big difference there.

Also, not sure where you are getting "because of lovely attorneys" out of that second link.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 13:26

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

ActusRhesus posted:

"false confession or incriminating statement."

Big difference there.

Also, not sure where you are getting "because of lovely attorneys" out of that second link.

Eh, I guess if you want just the false confessions it's 16% according to the Stanford Law Review

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/substance-false-confessions

So it's all good then? Yay justice system. Only 16%. Good work everyone.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 13:43

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

ActusRhesus posted:

Also, not sure where you are getting "because of lovely attorneys" out of that second link.

Yeah, it could be good attorneys who realize that the justice system will railroad minorities regardless of their actual innocence.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 13:49

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

Devor posted:

Yeah, it could be good attorneys who realize that the justice system will railroad minorities regardless of their actual innocence.

Sure, the best defense attorneys work as a team with the prosecutors to get as many deals cut as possible. I mean it would be crazy to actually have to put people on trial, that would slow down the process of putting as many poor people in prison as possible.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 13:55

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

ActusRhesus posted:

Also, not sure where you are getting "because of lovely attorneys" out of that second link.

Prosecutors were involved, obviously.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 14:04

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

"hey, guy we totally caught with an eighth of weed we can't produce as evidence, just plead guilty and take a month in jail so we can get back to suing this pile of money right into the general fund"

# ? Aug 27, 2015 15:25

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

FAUXTON posted:

"hey, guy we totally caught with an eighth of weed we can't produce as evidence, just plead guilty and take a month in jail so we can get back to suing this pile of money right into the general fund"

Can you give me an example of this actually happening?

# ? Aug 27, 2015 16:44

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

PostNouveau posted:

Eh, I guess if you want just the false confessions it's 16% according to the Stanford Law Review

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/substance-false-confessions

So it's all good then? Yay justice system. Only 16%. Good work everyone.

16% of the cases the Innocence Project or others chose to take on and succeeded in exonerating. I'll give you a hint - they don't take on most cases. They pick the ones which have a good chance of exoneration. If you start from a baseline of "people who didn't do what they were accused of", your false confession rate is going to be a lot higher than if your baseline is "people accused of a crime."

The rate across the entire justice system isn't going to be anywhere near 16%.

E: Christ, from the third page of that article. "These forty cases cannot speak to how often people confess falsely."

Kalman fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 27, 2015

# ? Aug 27, 2015 16:52

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

It's pretty ridiculous that there's a pool of "people who obviously didn't do it" from which some charity is even able to select good cases to overturn in the first place.

Man sure would be great if the justice system were willing and able to figure that out instead of coercing innocent people to plea using the threat of even harsher punishment for their imaginary crime if they fight.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Aug 27, 2015

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:02

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

VitalSigns posted:

It's pretty ridiculous that there's a pool of "people who obviously didn't do it" from which some charity is even able to select good cases to overturn in the first place.

I agree, which is why I did Innocence Project work in law school, but taking from that the lesson that "16% of confessions are false" is dumb and factually incorrect.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:04

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Many innocence project cases are also pre-DNA. DNA testing has dramatically reduced the rate of false accusations. Which is a good thing. Yay science.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:10

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

A justice system shouldn't be extracting false confessions. That should be rare regardless, because the whole point of amendments 4-6 is to stop the abusive ways we've known about for centuries that corrupt justice systems use to make people confess to crimes they didn't do.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:19

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

We do know that 1/4 of DNA-based exonerations were for cases where a false confession was made. While this doesn't let us know how many convictions on average were based on false confessions, it does let us know that in wrongful conviction cases a good chunk of the victims confessed to a crime they never did. Most of the factors that could result in a false confession are related to police or judicial system incompetence or abuse.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:26

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

VitalSigns posted:

A justice system shouldn't be extracting false confessions. That should be rare regardless, because the whole point of amendments 4-6 is to stop the abusive ways we've known about for centuries that corrupt justice systems use to make people confess to crimes they didn't do.

I would love to hear you put a number on what percentage of false confessions you think are cases where the cops thought or knew the accused didn't do it but extracted a confession anyway, vs ones where they wrongly thought the accused did it and extracted a confession.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:43

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

Kalman posted:

I would love to hear you put a number on what percentage of false confessions you think are cases where the cops thought or knew the accused didn't do it but extracted a confession anyway, vs ones where they wrongly thought the accused did it and extracted a confession.

Does the difference really matter in the end?

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:46

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

MariusLecter posted:

Does the difference really matter in the end?

... Does the difference between "officers being actively malicious" and "officers being wrong" matter?

I mean, if you care about what you need to do to try and change things, it might.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:48

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Kalman posted:

I would love to hear you put a number on what percentage of false confessions you think are cases where the cops thought or knew the accused didn't do it but extracted a confession anyway, vs ones where they wrongly thought the accused did it and extracted a confession.

Why is this important, I thought we had the 5th and 6th amendments so the government had to prove its case rather than relying on false confessions.

I don't really see "well we didn't know whether the confession was false or not when we coerced it from the guy" as exculpatory.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:52

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

VitalSigns posted:

Why is this important, I thought we had the 5th and 6th amendments so the government had to prove its case rather than relying on false confessions.

I don't really see "well we didn't know whether the confession was false or not when we coerced it from the guy" as exculpatory.

I think you did something. I have some evidence suggesting that you did it. The basic protections of the Constitution have been afforded to you. I use the same tactics I use on anyone else to obtain a confession.

You confess.

Turns out, you actually did it. There is no issue, correct?

Now do the whole thing again, only this time you didn't do it. That's why it matters.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:54

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Kalman posted:

I think you did something. I have some evidence suggesting that you did it. The basic protections of the Constitution have been afforded to you. I use the same tactics I use on anyone else to obtain a confession.

You confess.

Turns out, you actually did it. There is no issue, correct?

Now do the whole thing again, only this time you didn't do it. That's why it matters.

I bolded the part where there is a problem, you're welcome

E: Here let me spell it out, if those tactics are successful at getting confessions regardless of the truth then they are bad tactics for getting the truth hth

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:55

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

VitalSigns posted:

I bolded the part where there is a problem, you're welcome

So you're against anyone trying to obtain confessions?

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:55

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Kalman posted:

I think you did something. I have some evidence suggesting that you did it. The basic protections of the Constitution have been afforded to you. I use the same tactics I use on anyone else to obtain a confession.

You confess.

Turns out, you actually did it. There is no issue, correct?

Now do the whole thing again, only this time you didn't do it. That's why it matters.

What are the tactics used to get the confession? Why did they achieve a false confession?

If the tactics used result in a false confession, I'd start questioning whether the basic protections of the Constitution are really there.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:56

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

Kalman posted:

... Does the difference between "officers being actively malicious" and "officers being wrong" matter?

No.

quote:

I mean, if you care about what you need to do to try and change things, it might.

Not really.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 17:58

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Kalman posted:

So you're against anyone trying to obtain confessions?

Did I fall through a time warp and it's 2005?

"Hey these tactics to get information out of suspected terrorists aren't just unconstitutional, they're not even good at distinguishing false intelligence from true"
"Oh so now you're against all intelligence gathering, Saddam-lover?"

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:01

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Part of the problem is that the burden to arrest, and therefore interrogate - probable cause - is less than the burden to convict - beyond a reasonable doubt - such that there could be sufficient extrinsic evidence to arrest but not necessarily convict.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:04

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

Kalman posted:

So you're against anyone trying to obtain confessions?

Wow. I cannot believe you just went there. But since we're playing the "putting words in people's mouthes" game, a counter question: you're okay with police using coercive tactics to scare suspects into making false confessions?

Edit: I mean, you're literally advocating that the purpose of the justice system isn't necessarily justice, just assigning guilt to anyone who gets pressured into confessing.

Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Aug 27, 2015

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:26

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

Did I fall through a time warp and it's 2005?

"Hey these tactics to get information out of suspected terrorists aren't just unconstitutional, they're not even good at distinguishing false intelligence from true"
"Oh so now you're against all intelligence gathering, Saddam-lover?"

No you fell into some sort of fantasy land in your head, we're talking for the most part about people who are confessing because they believe the cops have enough evidence to convict them, not loving waterboarding.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:26

Dr Pepper: Feb 4, 2012; Don't like it? well...

Kalman posted:

So you're against anyone trying to obtain confessions?

I am. Because it's pretty clear that police coerce people into confessing and this inevitably leads to people making false confessions and thus getting falsely convicted of crimes.

Confessions should be considered meaningless as evidence.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:32

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Part of the problem is that the burden to arrest, and therefore interrogate - probable cause - is less than the burden to convict - beyond a reasonable doubt - such that there could be sufficient extrinsic evidence to arrest but not necessarily convict.

I guess the solution is to place judges on the beat?

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:33

Anora: Feb 16, 2014; I fuckin suck!🪠

quote:

The helmets that have been issued will not sustain a number of the chemical agents and various projectiles that were used against police during the civil disturbances," he wrote.

Wait, what "Chemical Agents" are they talking about?

Also, This happened to a Local DJ. It's hard to explain as I'm not him, but basically he got a warning, not a ticket, for driving without insurance, and was told to e-mail proof to the court house. He does, and then was arrested yesterday. When talking to the cops he gets told not only would they have seized his son, who was in the car with him, but also told him after he bonded out they told him that it seemed like a mix up, and "It wasn't his fault, but it's his problem."

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:33

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

ActusRhesus posted:

Many innocence project cases are also pre-DNA. DNA testing has dramatically reduced the rate of false accusations. Which is a good thing. Yay science.

And thankfully nobody has opposed the use of DNA testing to free the innocent and find the guilty so that...wait, what's that? Prosecutors fight tooth and nail to keep DNA testing from being carried out you say? Well I never would have suspected that the people responsible for railroading the innocent would struggle to smother the truth.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:37

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

Kalman posted:

So you're against anyone trying to obtain confessions?

You're assuming that we have no alternative to the interrogation techniques that are currently standard in the USA, which isn't the case. Here's a New Yorker article about the issue from a couple of years ago, which goes into some of the problems with the standard, also called the Reid Technique. It goes on to explain that British police recognized that the Reid Technique was generating an unacceptable proportion of false positives, and they worked with psychologists and other experts to design a better method, the PEACE model. It's also been widely adopted in Canada.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:37

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

VitalSigns posted:

Did I fall through a time warp and it's 2005?

"Hey these tactics to get information out of suspected terrorists aren't just unconstitutional, they're not even good at distinguishing false intelligence from true"
"Oh so now you're against all intelligence gathering, Saddam-lover?"

Except here the tactics ARE constitutional and DO overwhelmingly produce reliable evidence.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:38

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

LeJackal posted:

And thankfully nobody has opposed the use of DNA testing to free the innocent and find the guilty so that...wait, what's that? Prosecutors fight tooth and nail to keep DNA testing from being carried out you say? Well I never would have suspected that the people responsible for railroading the innocent would struggle to smother the truth.

Which prosecutors?

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:40

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

Jarmak posted:

No you fell into some sort of fantasy land in your head, we're talking for the most part about people who are confessing because they believe the cops have enough evidence to convict them, not loving waterboarding.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/chicago-torture-reparations_n_7225938.html

quote:

beatings, suffocation, electrocution and other abuse in order to force their confessions.

No waterboarding!

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:42

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

If you wondered why police treat you like an animal? Well, maybe because we train police like they are animals:

quote:

VirTra�s flagship product, the V-300, resembles a big and expensive human-centric version of Big Buck Hunter. Officers stand in the center of five video screens and are placed in a simulation of a potentially dangerous situation. If they fail to fire upon the threat quickly enough, they receive an electric shockto simulate a wound. �VirTra�s pain compliance training operates on the theory that officers who hesitate to take action, die,� writes Down and Drought, effectively training them to shoot first and ask questions later.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 05:30

Dr Pepper: Feb 4, 2012; Don't like it? well...

ActusRhesus posted:

Which prosecutors?

Look up near any story about someone being proven innocent by DNA evidence and there will inevitably be a part in which the prosecutor opposes the use of it.

Soo.. all of them basically.

# ? Aug 27, 2015 18:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »