|
From talking with them through my life I am of the general opinion that cops and law enforcement in general fall on average well below an acceptable amount of intelligence and I'm glad that I make much more money than they do. That's just my opinion.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
My impression of an average cop: unghhh yea boys in blue...i got bullied in high school so now i serve the zionists who pay me my meager sheckles to get shot at by bl*cks ... i also get horned up as hell looking at other boys in blue and im gay with them all the time haha... Fuckin yea thin blue line...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The test showed he wasn't the person whose semen was found. The prosecutor agreed - and decided to charge him anyway, on the theory that the semen belonged to a (imaginary) consensual partner and Deskovic killed her out of jealousy. The case was built entirely on a falsely obtained confession that contradicted the DNA evidence. I'm not arguing he wasn't a case of actual innocence...however, it is possible for a victim to have semen from someone other than the killer in them. Women are allowed to have sex with people. It's not an unreasonable theory, especially if you have a confession. The problem here is they claimed it was a case of withholding evidence...they didn't withhold it. They interpreted it differently. It's not an uncommon motive theory. See e.g. Michael Skakel. Another "innocent" man, awarded a new trial because of the unjust criminal justice system ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I'm not talking Miranda, although I am talking prophylaxis. I mean, it's not like the Miranda rule is constitutionally required, and probably wouldn't have been created if police were disciplined for illegal searches. Miranda wasn't created because of illegal searches...did you mean Wong Sun? either way, I don't mind the exclusionary rule. Get a warrant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:10
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not arguing he wasn't a case of actual innocence...however, it is possible for a victim to have semen from someone other than the killer in them. Women are allowed to have sex with people. It's not an unreasonable theory, especially if you have a confession. Have you ever sat back and thought about what kind of context you create with the things you write? That is, envision your posts as a sort of common law. What does it say?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Here's a question: if the probability of the truth or falsehood of confessions is impossible to determine, even theoretically, then why should we rely on them when the standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? we don't. A confession has to be corroborated by some outside evidence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:we don't. A confession has to be corroborated by some outside evidence. A nice idea. On the other hand, recorded history proves otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:A nice idea. You are incorrect. look up corpus delecti rule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You are incorrect. look up corpus delecti rule. You are incorrect, look up all the false convictions of people based off their coerced confession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:16
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:You are incorrect, look up all the false convictions of people based off their coerced confession. Corpus delicti means that there must be proof of a crime to convict someone, so by the powers of pedantry, I have the power to say that, technically, nobody has ever been truly or falsely convicted solely on the basis of a confession* *excluding police states, and, well, let's just paper over the years from 1890-1940 a bit.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:we don't. A confession has to h be corroborated by some outside evidence. Okay well you right now are white-knighting a case where a guy was convicted with zero outside evidence except a confession bolstered by notes the prosecutor "remembered to submit" that added details to the confession to explain away outside evidence that contradicted the original confession sooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You are incorrect. look up corpus delecti rule. "Such proof, however, may be circumstantial and need only be a slight or prima facie showing "permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed."" Not that the confesser did it or was in any way involved. Confession + body is enough to satisfy corpus delicti for murder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
So the fact that I can't be convicted of theft for falsely confessing to stealing Obama's watch when he's not missing a watch is proof that there's plenty of legal safeguards against false confessions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You are incorrect. look up corpus delecti rule. Why is it that you get to tell us to look things up, and on the same page I see you demand proof and citations for others?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You sound angry. Calm down. The fact is, when you rely on things like the lapointe case you undermine your credibility. You clearly aren't looking for true understanding of the actual issues in play. Don't do this. The zeroing in on one portion of an argument in a vain attempt to not have to address the rest is so draining to read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How can anyone write anything supportive about the Innocence Project after the poo poo they pulled with Alstory Simon? I can't believe the Innocence Project is allowed to operate courts and sentence people to prison, that's outrageous. If only he'd been tried by the state he wouldn't have had to worry about going to jail based on.a false confession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:Don't do this. The zeroing in on one portion of an argument in a vain attempt to not have to address the rest is so draining to read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:32
|
|
twodot posted:Why are people presenting parts of arguments that apparently don't matter? I really don't get the requests to not engage with what people actually say. Because, as you have demonstrated, there is at least one illiterate/semiliterate posting, and their, your, ability to "engage" with "what people actually say" is limited.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:You are incorrect, look up all the false convictions of people based off their coerced confession. There are evidentiary rules that require *some* corroborating evidence. If all they do is enter the confession, move for directed verdict. Done. If they put on more than just the confession, then they weren't convicted *just* on the confession. Granted it only has to be somewhat corroborative. But still saying they were convicted solely on their confession is inaccurate. Effectronica posted:Corpus delicti means that there must be proof of a crime to convict someone, so by the powers of pedantry, I have the power to say that, technically, nobody has ever been truly or falsely convicted solely on the basis of a confession* No. In the confession context that is not what the corpus delecti rule means. it's not pedantry to point out, in a discussion about the law, that legal terminology matters. VitalSigns posted:Okay well you right now are white-knighting a case where a guy was convicted with zero outside evidence except a confession bolstered by notes the prosecutor "remembered to submit" that added details to the confession to explain away outside evidence that contradicted the original confession sooooooooooo I'm not white knighting it. I'm pointing out that belief that the presence of a third party's semen inside a dead victim isn't per se exonerating, and proceeding under a theory that the victim had consensual sex with another person does not make someone a mustache twirling villain. They were wrong. It doesn't make them evil. Kalman posted:"Such proof, however, may be circumstantial and need only be a slight or prima facie showing "permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed."" most jurisdictions require a little more than that. LeJackal posted:Why is it that you get to tell us to look things up, and on the same page I see you demand proof and citations for others? Because there is a difference between "Here is the name of a legal doctrine that says you are wrong, look it up" and "Big pronouncement of general unprovable assertion. No I don't have statistics or data to back up my claim, so what. I believe it's true."
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:03
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. In the confession context that is not what the corpus delecti rule means. it's not pedantry to point out, in a discussion about the law, that legal terminology matters. I'm having a hard time finding this "corpus delecti rule", so would you mind quoting it? I appear to have mixed it up with the corpus delicti rule.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:Don't do this. The zeroing in on one portion of an argument in a vain attempt to not have to address the rest is so draining to read. "People should ignore the most important part of my argument being wrong and not point it out in any way". Do you realize how retarded that sounds?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm having a hard time finding this "corpus delecti rule", so would you mind quoting it? I appear to have mixed it up with the corpus delicti rule. I can't spell and spellcheck doesn't fix Latin. Does pointing that out make you feel special?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
So let's say that there's a proposition- "there is something wrong with policing in this country", which has a vast and growing body of evidence to support it. How, if you disagreed with it, would you best argue against this? It's really quite simple. You pretend to agree with it, while arguing against any actual particular bit of evidence. You provide solutions that are mind-numbing, technocratic, and enforce the basic message of "shut up and sit down". This is how, for example, global warming skepticism has operated. Of course, surely nobody would be so dishonest about something like criminal justice, which no-one's livelihoods or deep-rooted beliefs depend upon. ActusRhesus posted:I can't spell and spellcheck doesn't fix Latin. Does pointing that out make you feel special? No, I thought that you might have had something else besides insisting that there's nothing pedantic about saying that a person cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a confession because there must be compelling evidence that a crime has been committed in the first place. Because that statement being a reasonable response relies, ultimately, on the belief that the people you are dealing with are on the moral and intellectual level of termites, and you are a human being speaking with human beings, in an occupation where that sort of belief is dangerous in the extreme. Or it relies on you, the speaker, being psychologically deviant in a major way, but that's rude and cruel to assume of another person without compelling evidence. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can't believe the Innocence Project is allowed to operate courts and sentence people to prison, that's outrageous. Are you seriously defending the Innocence Project for setting this guy up, including using a lawyer to pretend to be on his side? It's Snidely Whiplash evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Weird, so there are no instances of a guilty person continuing to insist on their innocence when presented with a lie? That's where the spill the beans because they were caught by those drat kids
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not white knighting it. I'm pointing out that belief that the presence of a third party's semen inside a dead victim isn't per se exonerating, and proceeding under a theory that the victim had consensual sex with another person does not make someone a mustache twirling villain. They were wrong. It doesn't make them evil. I think you should read the brief I posted when Jeffrey sued the city and settled for millions of dollars, because somehow you're failing to notice that the investigator edited the confession and fabricated new statements after DNA evidence contradicted the original one, and oh yeah, listened to the interrogation as the cop told the kid he wouldn't be able to stop the other cops from coming in and beating the poo poo out of him unless he confessed. I don't know if offering a suspect a credible threat of violence for not confessing is enough to make one a mustache-twirling villain, but it's certainly not a tactic that's appropriate for an investigation theoretically intended to uncover the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Are you seriously defending the Innocence Project for setting this guy up, including using a lawyer to pretend to be on his side? It's Snidely Whiplash evil. No of course not, I am actually 100% in agreement with you that if all it takes to convict and imprison someone is tricking them into a flimsy false confession, we have good reason to suspect there's a severe problem in the justice system and its ability to ascertain the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Plus, if you confess now, I give you my word, as an officer of the law I'll work with the DA to make sure you never see jail. We already have your DNA evidence at the scene. If you don't confess now, the judge will throw the book at you. You don't know the guy like I do, trust me confessing now will help you do some community service and see your family again. I'm just trying to help you get your life back, trust me. I don't know about the US but in Canada, before considering exclusion for a breach of someone's rights (which doesn't guarantee exclusion), a statement has to be proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt in order to even be admissible. An explicit promise for a specific favourable result would almost certainly result in a finding that it wasn't voluntary and not admissible, so you wouldn't have officers stating it that clearly. Zarkov Cortez fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No of course not, I am actually 100% in agreement with you that if all it takes to convict and imprison someone is tricking them into a flimsy false confession, we have good reason to suspect there's a severe problem in the justice system and its ability to ascertain the truth. Did you not read that article at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Are you seriously defending the Innocence Project for setting this guy up, including using a lawyer to pretend to be on his side? It's Snidely Whiplash evil. Hate to break it to you, but the organization in your link is not The Innocence Project that people have been talking about. Your link is about the misdeeds of the former Medell Innocence Project, now the Medell Justice Project. They're journalism school students, not lawyers. This doesn't excuse what they did, but it does make your earlier comment completely off-base.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Did you not read that article at all? Uh yeah I did, the Medell Innocence Project fabricated a confession and instead of, I don't know, investigating or collecting evidence or any of that hard difficult stuff, the state was like "oh a confession awesome, straight to trial let's just accept his plea at face value and get this done"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
quote is not edit, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh yeah I did, the Medell Innocence Project fabricated a confession and instead of, I don't know, investigating or collecting evidence or any of that hard difficult stuff, the state was like "oh a confession awesome, straight to trial let's just accept his plea at face value and get this done" So you some how missed the fact they got his wife to fabricate testimony against him, impersonated police officers, and got him a fake defense attorney in order to coerce the confession?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So you some how missed the fact they got his wife to fabricate testimony against him, impersonated police officers, and got him a fake defense attorney in order to coerce the confession? Sure would be nice if we had some kind of professional force to investigate and maybe "police" the country even, maybe even someone legally trained and with years of experience to, I don't know, "judge" evidence and rule whether a confession obtained through trickery and deception is admissible. I am not a drug addict but I have friends who are, and it sure would be a shame if someone could take advantage of their confused mental processes to trick them into confessing and all a court cared about was whether they said they did it and not whether there's evidence they did it. I don't see how you can read the article and think this makes Milwaukee's court system look anything but incompetent and terrible if this flimsy poo poo is all it takes to lock someone up for over a decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I don't know about the US but in Canada, before considering exclusion for a breach of someone's rights (which doesn't guarantee exclusion), a statement has to be proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt in order to even be admissible. An explicit promise for a specific favourable result would almost certainly result in a finding that it wasn't voluntary and not admissible, so you wouldn't have officers stating it that clearly. Yup. At least here, confessions are presumed involuntary and it's the State's burden (by preponderance, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) to show that any statements were voluntarily made considering all the circumstances. Any promise that the Defendant relies on means a suppression motion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
This thread. "As proof that wrongful convictions and false confessions are nothing to worry about, here's an example where a so-called wrongful conviction was only overturned because it turns out it was totally easy to fabricate a false confession and wrongfully convict someone else!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure would be nice if we had some kind of professional force to investigate and maybe "police" the country even, maybe even someone legally trained and with years of experience to, I don't know, "judge" evidence and rule whether a confession obtained through trickery and deception is admissible. His loving wife testified against him as well If that case is an example of what it takes to get someone to falsely confess then I'd say the system is working way better then I thought. I don't really understand how you think it helps you at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:His loving wife testified against him as well Well considering his confession was only elicited after showing him a video of his ex-wife saying he did it, along with a video of a paid actor saying he did it, really all we actually had was his wife's word. "The word of one woman about a crime from 17 years ago, who later recanted, and an actor pretending to be a witness was enough to convict a guy, what a pleasant surprise!" It is flabbergasting what you will defend. You would think this would be a great example of why confessions, especially from mentally disturbed people, and eyewitness testimony are unreliable but nope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
It's funny. Normally, if you were using silver-bullet tactics, you wouldn't cast yourself as the werewolf.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
zzyzx posted:Yup. At least here, confessions are presumed involuntary and it's the State's burden (by preponderance, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) to show that any statements were voluntarily made considering all the circumstances. Any promise that the Defendant relies on means a suppression motion. Uh there was an example earlier in this thread where a cop said that if someone if he confessed that he wouldn't get jail time, that confession was then used to sentence that man to jail. I'm sure it wasn't a legally binding promise or some other pedantic answer, but the reality to the guy in jail is the same. Cops lied to get a confession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:48
|
|
