|
You would think that whole mess should be the easiest confession to unravel ever with just a bit of police work, like talking to the suspect. "Hey why did you decide to come forward now after all these years? ...Oh our officers came by and said we had evidence? Hmmm, no we didn't. What else? Oh you saw some videos, let's get those." ... "Okay we got the videos, hey who is this unknown witness, let's get his name...oh he's an actor? Why didn't your attorney find this out...oh he told you to confess? Hey who is this guy let's find out" ... "Oh hmm it seems your attorney is friends with the dude who showed you the fake witness video. Hey did anyone offer you anything to confess? Because we've never talked to you before so none of their offers are binding in any way on the judge...oh they offered you a light sentence and financial proceeds from the sale of books about this case? And you're having money troubles and have an expensive drug addiction?" Eh whatever I am sure it would cost to much tax money to actually investigate crimes or something.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted: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. The "example" appears to be your own quote. Statements made during proffers for the purpose of plea negotiations are inadmissible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You would think that whole mess should be the easiest confession to unravel ever with just a bit of police work, like talking to the suspect. What the gently caress are you talking about? He didn't confess and then get convicted based on it. He loving plead guilty and allocuted in open court, he didn't contest the confession until after he was already in prison, and his ex-wife didn't recant her testimony about witnessing the killing until many years later. You think there state's attorney was in a super big hurry to railroad some guy for a crime that she already sent someone to death row for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Maybe before accepting pleas we should look into things like whether the defendant is of sound mind, whether he relied on false promises of leniency from people impersonating officers, whether the witness testimony used to influence the defendant included false statements from an actor, whether defendant's counsel has obvious conflicts of interest, whether the defendant was offered financial rewards in exchange for a confession, you know little things like that. I thought that was the jobs of people like cops and prosecutors but sorry you've caught me trying to apply professional and ethical standards to them again. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You think there state's attorney was in a super big hurry to railroad some guy for a crime that she already sent someone to death row for? I'm sure everyone involved feels real bad about the lives they've ruined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted: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. Looks like they got kicked out of the "Innocence Network" back in 2012, being one of 80+ Innocent Project affiliates. But at the time of them pulling all this poo poo they were part of it. It's also one of the first (if not the first) big cases where someone was taken off death row due to the Innocence Project's work and led to a lot of their publicity. quote:Maybe before accepting pleas we should look into things like whether the defendant is of sound mind, whether he relied on false promises of leniency from people impersonating officers, whether the witness testimony used to influence the defendant included false statements from an actor, whether defendant's counsel has obvious conflicts of interest, whether the defendant was offered financial rewards in exchange for a confession, you know little things like that. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe before accepting pleas we should look into things like whether the defendant is of sound mind, whether he relied on false promises of leniency from people impersonating officers, whether the witness testimony used to influence the defendant included false statements from an actor, whether defendant's counsel has obvious conflicts of interest, whether the defendant was offered financial rewards in exchange for a confession, you know little things like that. What the gently caress? No, they shouldn't and no, its not their job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How is the court/prosecutor going to find this out? Interrogating the defense counsel to make sure he isn't nefarious? Maybe rough him up a little just in case? "Hey did anyone offer you anything to plea. Oh, a reduced sentence and a bunch of money from a book deal, you say? Hey defense counsel did you know about this?" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What the gently caress? No, they shouldn't and no, its not their job. Really? Police and prosecutors shouldn't make any attempt to find out if confessions were coerced or bought. Well I guess if your standard for justice is "did the guy say he did it" and not "is there evidence he did it" then I concede, job well done all around, justice was served. Toss the guy back in prison then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:"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? That would if that was an honest interpretation. However dismissing hundreds of other cases by using one case is a transparent way of weaseling out of an actual debate, let alone one that doesn't make the " most important part" wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? Police and prosecutors shouldn't make any attempt to find out if confessions were coerced or bought. The prosecutor/police should probably speak to the accused alone in a room without their lawyer to ensure that there is no shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:The prosecutor/police should probably speak to the accused alone in a room without their lawyer to ensure that there is no shenanigans. This is unconstitutional, but luckily we don't have to violate the sixth amendment to find out things like whether people impersonating police officers made false statements to the accused, and questions like "did anyone besides me make you any offers or promises in exchange for your confession" can be asked with a lawyer present and are pretty good questions to ask assuming the prosecutor is actually interested in an answer and not trying to railroad a guilty plea as quickly and sloppily as humanly possible. We also don't have to deny the accused their right to counsel to find out if they're mentally competent to plea. Your idea is bad. E: I like your implication that I somehow support cops beating up suspects in order to get them to recant confessions so they can get off scot-free. Don't contradictory thoughts like this make your head hurt something terrible? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The "example" appears to be your own quote. I was talking about Deskovic, try reading the thread. Also it doesn't count as plea negotiations if it is a police officer lying and not making a formal plea deal but instead promising to "help" or lying and telling someone that by confessing they will receive a lighter punishment. It's not a negotiation, it's legal, but that doesn't mean it should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also it doesn't count as plea negotiations if it is a police officer lying and not making a formal plea deal but instead promising to "help" or lying and telling someone that by confessing they will receive a lighter punishment. It's not a negotiation, it's legal, but that doesn't mean it should be. Which is funny, because one of the criticisms of the study on false confessions is that it doesn't apply in criminal situations where the stakes are high, because the study subjects were willing to sign false confessions when the stakes for doing so were low. But of course it's totally legal for cops to lie to the suspect and claim the penalty for a confession is low like for example by telling Deskovic they guarantee that he would not be criminally charged but would only spend a few months in a mental hospital and his family would never even find out he confessed. Now of course this isn't binding, isn't it fun that we expect a frightened 16-year-old to know the intricacies of plea negotiation, and if he fucks it up and relies on an inadmissible promise of immunity, sweet we get to send him to jail and don't have to look for the real criminal who is out on the street free to rape and murder again. Oh and in this case the real perp did go on to murder another woman and was finally imprisoned for that, I'm sure her family is really glad the cops worked over a 16-year-old kid instead of trying to find the 30-year-old murderer before he killed again. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Hey did anyone offer you anything to plea. Oh, a reduced sentence and a bunch of money from a book deal, you say? Hey defense counsel did you know about this?" They do ask this as part of the plea canvass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I was talking about Deskovic, try reading the thread. here that would likely lead to suppression of the statement. If the suspect thought a deal was being offered, tough poo poo. The most our cops are allowed to say is "I'll talk to the state's attorney" actual offers of time or no time have to come from the state or the judge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If the suspect thought a deal was being offered, tough poo poo. The most our cops are allowed to say is "I'll talk to the state's attorney" actual offers of time or no time have to come from the state or the judge. And if you're ignorant of that fact, it's your own fault, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:And if you're ignorant of that fact, it's your own fault, right? If someone is ignorant of basic facts about how the legal system works that anyone should have learned in school, yes, it is, in fact, their own fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:07
|
|
-Troika- posted:If someone is ignorant of basic facts about how the legal system works that anyone should have learned in school, yes, it is, in fact, their own fault. Can you show that this is part of statewide civics curricula, or are we through the looking glass, and simply asserting that something should be taught in schools is enough to assume that only idiots wouldn't know it?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:If someone is ignorant of basic facts about how the legal system works that anyone should have learned in school, yes, it is, in fact, their own fault. Remind me again which high school class teaches these basic facts. Because it wasn't in any of the four high schools in different parts of the country I went to. (military brat)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
A hallmark of a fair and just system is one that takes advantage of the ignorant despite their presumed innocence. That's also being generous and assuming that the average person is taught anything about the legal system in school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Remind me again which high school class teaches these basic facts. Because it wasn't in any of the four high schools in different parts of the country I went to. (military brat)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:I took this class in mine. I wish mine had offered something like that, it would have been pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:And if you're ignorant of that fact, it's your own fault, right? And you tell your counsel you were promised no time, and your counsel, who does know this, pitches a fit on your behalf. That's what the 6th amendment is for. And the class that teaches this (or should) is civics. But most civics education in this country focuses on fluffy bunny SJW bullshit instead of actual civic information. Also, if you've seen an episode of law and order you know you have the right to have an attorney present. If you waive that right 
ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And the class that teaches this (or should) is civics. But most civics education in this country focuses on fluffy bunny SJW bullshit instead of actual civic information. And honestly you were educated better than that AR, using SJW as some kind of slur undermines you point as much as the ignorance on the current state of education. Blaming the victim for not knowing that Criminal Justice doesn't have their best interest at heart is like blaming a child for being molested. The point is if you are already blaming a victim for giving a coerced confession then you at least acknowledge there is a problem and should be trying to find ways to fix it so it doesn't happen again. And if you face retaliation for trying to fix it then that's an issue with Criminal Justice and should be a focus point so that people like yourself and others who seek to do the right thing can do so. It's a lot better than blaming the victim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Seriously? Our civics education is a loving joke. And it's not "blaming the victim" to say that people should exercise their constitutional rights. Also, I have trouble with your use of the term victim, as not all statements are coerced and not all coerced confessions, in fact not even a significant minority of coerced confessions are false. This does not make coercion ok. However, your example is like saying a person is a victim when he consents to a search of his vehicle because he doesn't know he has a right to refuse and police find a dead hooker in his trunk. Your concern for victims is really lacking here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
The idea that each side in a court case shouldn't be expected to advocate as much as they can for their position is bonkers. That's pretty much the foundational principle of our legal system and if you want to throw that out I'm not even sure what else could replace it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:If someone is ignorant of basic facts about how the legal system works that anyone should have learned in school, yes, it is, in fact, their own fault. Does this apply to the developmentally disabled people prosecutors are fond of executing? mastershakeman posted:The idea that each side in a court case shouldn't be expected to advocate as much as they can for their position is bonkers. That's pretty much the foundational principle of our legal system and if you want to throw that out I'm not even sure what else could replace it. This isn't even true in our current legal system. If a defense lawyer knows that his client is lying to him about evidence, he is ethically obligated not to assist with misleading the court. Prosecutors are effectively under the same ethical guidelines, but there is so much room for prosecutorial discretion that it's effectively meaningless. Southern prosecutor assumes a black guy is guilty? Welp, guess he's hosed even if evidence to the contrary arises during the investigation. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Does this apply to the developmentally disabled people prosecutors are fond of executing? Pretty sure Atkins v Virginia already settled that you can't execute the mentally retarded. Stupid, however, is not a disability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Pretty sure Atkins v Virginia already settled that you can't execute the mentally retarded. Stupid, however, is not a disability. And yet prosecutors continue to argue for exactly that: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/28/texas-set-to-execute-mentally-disabled-man.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Seriously? No not at all. You just pursue harsher penalties for people who exercise their constitutional right to defense in a court of law, versus offering plea deals under duress. Totally not coercion. Because it's legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:No not at all. You just pursue harsher penalties for people who exercise their constitutional right to defense in a court of law, versus offering plea deals under duress. Totally not coercion. Because it's legal. No. We give credit and show leniency to those willing to acknowledge their guilt and spare the state the cost and the victim the stress of a trial. Perspective. Think of the urinalysis cup as half full (and evidence of a probation violation)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Our civics education is a loving joke. And it's not "blaming the victim" to say that people should exercise their constitutional rights. How can you type those two sentences and not see the problem instantly. Even if we took the laughable assumption that every civics class in the country taught this and taught in more than just a passing "If you're arrested you have the right to a lawyer" we'd still have the problem of relying on teenagers paying attention assuming they didn't flunk or drop out seeing as they are the ones probably most likely to end up needing to know this. In this very thread we have the legal advice of people like Dis Vox of "Go ahead and talk to the police just don't say too much". Police should not be able to talk to anybody in the first place beyond basic info like ID and if they are under arrest what the charges are until at minimum a PD gets to at least explain to them what their rights are. None of this "Oh we just want to talk you're not under arrest or anything" or getting poorly educated people to sign away their right to counsel because they don't understand what that means. People love to throw around ignorance of the law is no excuse but are people seriously saying ignorance of your rights is somehow not the justice systems problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Do you really believe the people most likely to be in the system don't know they have a right to counsel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Our civics education is a loving joke. quote:And it's not "blaming the victim" to say that people should exercise their constitutional rights. quote:Also, I have trouble with your use of the term victim, as not all statements are coerced and not all coerced confessions, in fact not even a significant minority of coerced confessions are false. quote:This does not make coercion ok. quote:However, your example is like quote:Your concern for victims is really lacking here. My post is not meant as an attack on you. It's meant to highlight the flaw in the logic that the problem is an education issue when not everyone has access to a good civics class or even an American Education in the first place. Do you think it is an issue or something we can just brush aside, personally? Even with the many examples given even 1 is too much, how do you get rid of people in the Crim Justice profession that only want to lock people up & don't care about guilt or innocence? Have there been any repercussions for people in your profession who do so (I haven't seen any)? You are someone who can give a thoughtful answer right? How do you combat people being railroaded because of economic class or race?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Do you really believe the people most likely to be in the system don't know they have a right to counsel? Why would they waive it if they fully understand the right? Edit: If the Miranda warning were changed to include the fact that police will lie about evidence and mislead you about everything they are legally allowed to, would more people ask for a lawyer? I think so. Most people think the police are generally required to be ethical with suspects, which is firmly not the case. Devor fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. We give credit and show leniency to those willing to acknowledge their guilt and spare the state the cost and the victim the stress of a trial. Perspective. Think of the urinalysis cup as half full (and evidence of a probation violation) So the sentence offered by a plea deal is, from the prosecutor's view, sufficient and appropriate to serve its purpose of protecting the public by isolating the defendant. But if he exercises his constitutional right to a trial in front of a jury of his peers, you deem it fit to throw him in jail for a longer period because he dared to cost the state the expense of proving its case? e: And how can you possibly ignore the obvious fact that the longer potential sentence from a trial provides incentive for defendants to plea out even if they aren't guilty rather than run that risk? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Do you really believe the people most likely to be in the system don't know they have a right to counsel? Why do you focus on the system working for most people when it's clear that there are holes in it that allow innocent people to be hurt. When that happens doesn't it screw the person AND the actual victim of the crime, plus allows whoever did it to go commit more crimes? Maybe it's just this lovely thread but you come across as not caring at all. I try to understand both sides of the issue as much as I can but this I can't get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. We give credit and show leniency to those willing to acknowledge their guilt and spare the state the cost and the victim the stress of a trial. Perspective. Think of the urinalysis cup as half full (and evidence of a probation violation) From yours it's saving the state the cost of the trial. From mine it's instituting a harsher punishment for pursuing their right to a speedy trial. The problem with your perspective is you build your view that the justice system works and that everyone on team Justice plays by the rules. The presence of a charity that has to go to court to compel prosecution to review cases when new evidence comes to light of prosecutorial misconduct seems to undercut that a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
Devor posted:Why would they waive it if they fully understand the right? Generally because they think they are smarter than they are. AreWeDrunkYet posted:So the sentence offered by a plea deal is, from the prosecutor's view, sufficient and appropriate to serve its purpose of protecting the public by isolating the defendant. But if he exercises his constitutional right to a trial in front of a jury of his peers, you deem it fit to throw him in jail for a longer period because he dared to cost the state the expense of proving its case? If you have two kids and you give one $10 for mowing the lawn, are you punishing the one who didn't? Dum Cumpster posted:Why do you focus on the system working for most people when it's clear that there are holes in it that allow innocent people to be hurt. When that happens doesn't it screw the person AND the actual victim of the crime, plus allows whoever did it to go commit more crimes? Largely because the thread often overstates the scope of the problem, improperly ascribes nefarious motives, and proposes thoroughly ridiculous sweeping reforms. If course I think wrongful convictions are bad. Of course I would care if I was responsible for one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:53
|
|