Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| When you fall, I will be there to catch you -With love, the floor |
That's why you have a defense attorney. why they don't deal with these questions is strange. I'm not a great fan of the death penalty. It's nothing more than a feel good law. It takes thirty years to carry out at a cost significantly higher than simple incarceration. Few are ever carried out. And at this some do get it wrong. Too late to recify in these cases. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
Especially if you are innocent! Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| We gonna get some oojima in this house!  |
They deserve a bullet. I mean anyone who would do this. ----------------------------------------------------------- TCB all the time... | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
Yes they go into a ton of detail on all of that. Also about how one of the detectives put his gun to the back of one of the suspect's head during the interrogation to prove a point and to obviously intimidate. They also go deeply into Det. Polanco's history of coerced Confessions. _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
semi-reformed sailor |
This is so fucked up. As a cop, I am only interested in the truth. I'd rather someone go free than screw up and get the wrong guy. I'd feel horrible if the bad guy killed again but I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I jailed the wrong guy just to get a conviction. The conviction is up to the DA not me. I can honestly say I have never taken a guy to jail that didn't do it. I have taken a pair of handcuffs off of someone after getting to the bottoms of it "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” Robert A. Heinlein “You may beat me, but you will never win.” sigmonkey-2020 “A single round of buckshot to the torso almost always results in an immediate change of behavior.” Chris Baker | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
I have read a lot of transcripts where these arguments are constantly quashed by the judge with sustained objections. _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
Defense attorneys deal with these things when they can. It's tough to make a good argument when evidence wasn't collected, because proof is elusive, conjectural. Recall the OJ defense. The Dream Team wore them out on every scrap of evidence. They had the luxury to be able to investigate, hire experts, test timelines, poke into discrepancies, raise doubts. They enjoyed and took advantage of prosecutorial ineptitude, of course Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
Another aspect of your judicial system that I find troubling is that often being educated is a criteria for dismissal from jury duty. _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
Member |
Since retiring from law enforcement almost a decade ago, I've served as a defense resource both as an investigator and (in over 50 appointments) as a court recognized expert in confessions evidence. While Ofshe and other academics provide some useful information, some of their claims are less than reliable considering how they can and do "cherry pick" incidents and rely upon experiments which would seem to be deliberately skewed for a particular result. Innocence projects frequently imply that their reversals "prove" false confessions are a such significant concern because cops are trained to use excessively coercive means to force innocent persons to admit guilt for acts they didn't commit. What they don't seem to be overly concerned about is the fact that (according to their own criteria) police officers needn't even talk to a defendant for a matter to be later described as a "false confession." If an innocent defendant decides to accept a plea after consulting with his or her attorney and the facts LATER exonerate the accused, the plea itself can and is considered to be another "false confession." As one who's not only read material written by experts such as Ofshe, Richard Leo, and others, but actually conducted thousands of interviews and interrogations, trained law enforcement personnel, defense investigators, attorneys and others on the subject, it pisses me off no end to see the "answer" described as simply "lawyering up" and invoking ones right to remain silent. Beyond the fact that lawyers have a monetary incentive to urge potential clients to refuse to cooperate even when detained for incidents which are minor in nature or cases where they are FACTUALLY INNOCENT, people have a natural tendency to talk if they believe doing so is in their own best interest. It would be a huge mistake to surpass "Miranda" and exclude admissions that are reliable, merely because it makes the defense job easier to raise reasonable doubt based upon information (the uncoached story of the accused) that the finder of fact never has an opportunity to hear. Beyond these issues, properly trained police officers can and do detain and arrest people that are innocent, but reasonably are suspected of crimes and can be exonerated quickly if questioned using "best prractices." If the innocent are more quickly identified and released, investigations can be redirected, the actual offender(s) can be readily identified and subsequently successfully prosecuted. While defense attorneys aren't responsible for these concerns, police officers are and the public expects them to provide the service of law enforcement. I've had the opportunity to see some real good work by cops that have been properly trained on how victims, witnesses, and suspects should be questioned, and dealt with incidents where that training was never offered, provided, or (having received it) the officers decided to just do their own thing and ignore it. Formal interview and interrogation training (using behavioral analysis based tactics) is rarely provided when it's needed most: During basic academy and the officers' formultive years. This is when it's most likely to be adopted, used, and the experiences built upon throughout a career. Although virtually ALL cops need to be good investigators regardless of where they're assigned to work, police managers almost universally fail to recognize the importance of this until something goes wrong and they're faced with a public relations/civil liability crisis. They don't mandate the training, provide policy regarding anything beyond the limitations of "Miranda" admonishments, require supervisors to insure best practices are employed, and virtually never discipline officers and investigators that ignore training which was received. Managers could instill a department philosophy that recognizes how important behavioral analysis based interview and interrogation skills are in not only solving crimes, but by increasing public confidence in their personnel through development of a skill set that's a central component to these techniques: EmpathyThis message has been edited. Last edited by: pulicords, "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken." | |||
|
| Member |
While I admit that it must actually happen occasionally, I still have a hard time believing that anyone would confess to a MURDER that they didn't commit, just to "get out of the room" or whatever. It seems much more highly likely that they confess, then simply don't want the confession used. So, faced with "what to believe", I think the evidence required to retract a confession would also have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" to actually reverse a conviction. "Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me." | |||
|
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
Big +1 One of the most common things officers do, even on a street level, is question people. It pains me to watch rookies, and non-rookies, standing firm and upright, bladed from their prey as if they are a cheetah prepared to strike, delivering one-two jab-like questions with no thought put into what they are doing. I address this in the academy when I have the chance, but they do what they see, during field training and after, and it is a very common sight. Drives me nuts, and puts the public on the defense, rightly so. My agency offers behavioral analysis based interrogation training, but the problem is that only a fraction of the supervisors ever did anything in their career before getting promoted, so the vast majority doesn't know the difference. Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
| Member |
FWIW: I've testified under oath that I (or anyone else) could get an innocent person to confess to a crime they didn't commit. One only needs to put a gun to the suspect's head and convince him that you'll blow their brains out if they don't tell you what you want to hear. If they believe you, they'll say anything, BUT that's not what we do in this country for two important reasons: 1) Our citizens don't tolerate that kind of conduct, and 2) We don't just want to get a confession, we want CREDIBLE admissions that are verified as being true. If police officers correctly question a suspect; avoid contamination issues and work within legal limits by refraining from using threats and promises of leniency, credible admissions and evidence which verifies those statements can be obtained. These admissions provide CONTEXT to physical and circumstantial evidence that's frequently essential for the trier of fact to have before deciding guilt or innocence. "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken." | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
It's actually not that far off from what they did during the Yogurt shop interrogations.  _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
| Oh stewardess, I speak jive.  |
I'd guess that there are many more instances where a dumbass and/or poor person (or at least one who is unable to afford even a mid-level much less rockstar Defense Attorney) was painted into a corner by the circumstances/DA/police and fearing a conviction and harsh sentence copped a plea and confessed in one form or another for something they didn't do just to get a lighter sentence, than there are of someone just folding to a harsh interrogation and confessing before it even got to the stage of DAs and deals. The former seems easy to understand, and quite likely, whereas the latter - while I'm sure it may brave happened here and there - seems much less likely and suspicious, at least in the modern era where in (I hope) most jurisdictions they aren't literally beating a confession out of someone with no witnesses or cameras rolling. Is there any delineation between these types in the data and academic/professional writing on the subject? | |||
|
| Member |
A confession of any type is considered "Prima Facie" evidence and great legal weight is put on it when it occurs. For me, it was the last step in case preparation. I already had all my ducks in a row, with physical evidence, witness statements and statements from anyone else associated with the crime before I sat down with the suspect. So, if he did not confess after what I considered a reasonable amount of questioning, I still had enough to charge him. A confession was simply the icing on the cake. Most interviews with suspects went one of two ways: They either fessed up fairly quickly or refused the interview. And after all this work, I still had to have the case reviewed by the Prosecutors Office or a Grand Jury. Do false confessions occur? I think they do. But rarely. And usually in a high profile, high pressure offense where Prosecutors, Supervisors, families, the media and the public are screaming for an arrest. It can, and often does, get really crazy when those factors come into play. That's why highly trained, highly skilled and experienced investigators are a must have for any investigative unit. And the earlier posting about questioning people you encounter on the street in a patrol setting was dead on. If I could talk to most people in a less confrontational (not always possible) way, they often told me enough to make an arrest. And Miranda did not apply, since they were not "in custody" or "detained". End of Earth: 2 Miles Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
Oh man I just read up on the Ryan Ferguson case and it is just a travesty. The fact that the prosecutor is now a judge and not behind bars is beyond maddening. It is way to long to post here but this is a synopsis of the whole case from crime to exoneration. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ry...rongfully-convicted/ _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
Political Cynic |
if you look up prosecutorial ineptitude, there is a photo of Marcia Clark and Richard Darden next to the definition Lance Ito is a footnote  [B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC | |||
|
Member |
It's not that hard to elicit a false confession. As has been pointed out in this thread, the suspects usually have been one or more of the following: below average intelligence, young, naive. A detective interrogates people for a living. Unless you're a serial criminal, being interrogated as a suspect is something that will only happen once in one's lifetime. Who do you think has the tactical upper hand? Get an adult professional interrogator to work over a 17 y/o kid for 12+ hours in an isolated room. Tell the kid, "All evidence points to you. We have enough to convict you. If it goes to trial, you're going to get the DP. The only consolation you have is if you confess, the prosecution will allow you to plea for life in prison, otherwise you die." It's not that hard and is more common than what we as a society should tolerate. | |||
|
| Member |
Many times you have LEO's and prosecutors that seem to lock on to one suspect(s) and no matter what comes up later, I find they cant admit they were wrong. One of my last criminal cases was a kid charged with Attempt Murder 1, the lead detectives swore that my guy was the one. This continued even after I found the guy that did it! Problem was the victims picked my guy out of a line-up. My client and the actual person that did it looked a bit alike. Took me a bit over 3 years and 4 different prosecutors to finally get the charges dropped. At one point, about a year into it, the judge told me in open court that my continuance she was granting was the last one. I actually laughed at her in open court! (SAO was shocked when I did it) I always find it funny when judges say shit like that. The judge just gave up getting mad at me by the 3rd year. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024