[quote]SexMachine wrote:
For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%.[/quote]
I’ve never seen a stat like that. I don’t know of the link is right below, but its more in line with what I have heard in the past. I know you are, for the most part, completely fucked if you are a criminal defendant in federal court.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m just trying to understand where everybody stands on this. Illegally obtained evidence should not be admissible in court, but there should be no legal repercussions for the person illegally obtaining evidence?
[/quote]
No, that’s not what I said. Firstly, it depends on the seriousness of the conduct. And if you want to punish the cop then you need to take separate action against him. You can’t sentence a witness for the prosecution at someone else’s trial. In severe cases of misconduct the police should take action against their own - possibly criminal action if evidence exists of such. And if they don’t then the defendant may take civil action or petition their local member of parliament to investigate the matter and so on. This is how it works.
[quote]
Should the officer that arrest someone based on illegally obtained evidence perhaps be charged with kidnapping? [/quote]
Wrongful arrest maybe. Kidnapping? No. Not unless he kidnapped you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
and he is defining misconduct to be so broad as to arresting someone who is ultimately determined to be not guilty of the crime.
[/quote]
If that is how you understood what I was saying, then you are either way off or I was not at all clear. I never(at least not intentionally) said that a police officer should be liable for anything because his arrestee is ultimately deemed not guilty. That would be ridiculous, because the burdens of proof for a lawful arrest and a guilty verdict in court are different. This incident, at least in the opinions of some on this thread, involved a police officer breaking the law.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%.[/quote]
I’ve never seen a stat like that. I don’t know if the link is right below, but its more in line with what I have heard in the past. I know you are, for the most part, completely fucked if you are a criminal defendant in federal court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate[/quote]
My mistake. I should have double checked that number. I was actually relying upon a Michael Crichton book called Rising Sun for the stats. I’ve checked and he claims it’s 30% in the book(got that wrong too).
It’s in the film too where Sean Connery is explaining to Wesley Snipes the difference between the Japanese and US criminal justice systems. Anyway, yes looks like that number is way off anyway.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t sentence a witness for the prosecution at someone else’s trial.[/quote]
I agree, and if what I said came off like that, then I apologize. There would obviously have to be a separate trial for the police officer.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t sentence a witness for the prosecution at someone else’s trial.[/quote]
I agree, and if what I said came off like that, then I apologize. There would obviously have to be a separate trial for the police officer.
[/quote]
Sorry if I misunderstood. But yes, police can take action against their own, you can pressure their superiors, member of parliament to investigate or you could take civil action yourself. But it’s certainly not a fool proof system of course.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why would it be terrible? For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%. That would mean, in 82.5% of the time the arresting officer would serve time instead of the defendant. You see, just because someone is found not guilty or the charges are dropped or whatever, doesn’t mean the arresting officers necessarily did anything wrong.[/quote]
If both you and TB understood what I said as, “Police officers should be civilly or criminally responsible for losses incurred by the arrestee in a case that results in a ‘not guilty’ verdict,” then I must have not been very clear. The question is, what should happen to an officer that unlawfully obtains evidence?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why would it be terrible? For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%. That would mean, in 82.5% of the time the arresting officer would serve time instead of the defendant. You see, just because someone is found not guilty or the charges are dropped or whatever, doesn’t mean the arresting officers necessarily did anything wrong.[/quote]
If both you and TB understood what I said as, “Police officers should be civilly or criminally responsible for losses incurred by the arrestee in a case that results in a ‘not guilty’ verdict,” then I must have not been very clear. The question is, what should happen to an officer that unlawfully obtains evidence? [/quote]
I answered that. I said it depends on the severity of misconduct. If there’s evidence he committed a crime then he should be criminally charged. Or you could take civil action against him.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why would it be terrible? For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%. That would mean, in 82.5% of the time the arresting officer would serve time instead of the defendant. You see, just because someone is found not guilty or the charges are dropped or whatever, doesn’t mean the arresting officers necessarily did anything wrong.[/quote]
If both you and TB understood what I said as, “Police officers should be civilly or criminally responsible for losses incurred by the arrestee in a case that results in a ‘not guilty’ verdict,” then I must have not been very clear. The question is, what should happen to an officer that unlawfully obtains evidence? [/quote]
Formally, in relation to the accused? Nothing.
He should get a stern lecture from his boss and the DA about shaping up and to stop screwing up their cases.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why would it be terrible? For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%. That would mean, in 82.5% of the time the arresting officer would serve time instead of the defendant. You see, just because someone is found not guilty or the charges are dropped or whatever, doesn’t mean the arresting officers necessarily did anything wrong.[/quote]
If both you and TB understood what I said as, “Police officers should be civilly or criminally responsible for losses incurred by the arrestee in a case that results in a ‘not guilty’ verdict,” then I must have not been very clear. The question is, what should happen to an officer that unlawfully obtains evidence? [/quote]
Formally, in relation to the accused? Nothing.
He should get a stern lecture from his boss and the DA about shaping up and to stop screwing up their cases.[/quote]
Or in a bad enough case, some short term unpaid leave to think things through. Job security has a way of saying things your superiors may not be able to get through to you.
There is no way in hell a union is going to let an officer be disciplined on a serious level. Sure, they will shake their fists in public, but nothing serious will happen.