Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:06:12 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's in my hard drive? How can I get rid of it? Message-ID: <20150219150612.88c2b0d0.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20150219081839.1a4c0359@scorpio> References: <54E39F83.70002@gmail.com> <mc0ad5$qu2$1@ger.gmane.org> <20150218173047.GA53030@slackbox.erewhon.home> <20150218184227.GC26575@neutralgood.org> <20150219132221.b5d14e68.freebsd@edvax.de> <20150219081839.1a4c0359@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:18:39 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:22:21 +0100, Polytropon stated:
>
> > Excuse me, but what poop-minded movie is _that_ from?!
> >
> > In my (layman's) education about law I learned that "could",
> > "would", "should", and a bright imagination don't lead you
> > anywhere in a constituational state that is prout on providing
> > a legal system under the requirements of the rule of law.
> > It's the job of the investigators to _prove_ you're guilty,
> > not your job to prove you're not. Of course, that job isn't
> > always easy, I can understand this, and far too often, the
> > criminals get away because they know "some clever tricks".
> > But it's fully unacceptable that the whole thing turns around
> > in such a way that there is a _chance_ that innocent people
> > get convicted because of the _absence_ of evidence.
>
> Actually, you are not factually correct. There have been convictions based on
> the fact that the defendant invoked his 5th. Amendment rights to an
> excessive degree. The jury based the conviction on the simple fact that if
> the actions of the defendant were not nefarious, he/she would not have used
> the 5th. Amendment to such excursiveness.
This is a possible point of view, but when someone exercises
a right that has been granted ("keep silent"), then doing so
_should_ not be seen as an evidence that makes him guilty.
At least, it's the prosecutor's job to construct a proper
chain of evidence which a jury should honor, instead of the
absence of something.
Thanks for your explanation. But in my heart and in my mind
it's my _honest_ opnion that the system of law (prosecution,
investigation, police, attorneys, judges, juries, courts) are
there for a _purpose_. They should serve the law by doing a
good job. As I said, it's not always easy to do so, and in
some cases, even the best work doesn't get a criminal to jail.
There should not be a "shortcut" to conviction just because
something "should have been there, but isn't anymore".
> This has happened several times in the US. Actually, it makes sense. If you
> were not hiding something then why not disclose the facts.
Yes, "why not", and "if you've got nothing to hide"...
that argumentation doesn't lead anywhere.
Some years ago, I watched a talk given by a police officer,
and he basically said: "Don't talk to the police. Keep your
mouth shut. Anything you say can get you into trouble, even
if you're just a witness and you are asked to state facts."
I can't provide a source, but it's probably still available
somewhere.
When I would extend the concept you mention, then there would
be no need for law counsels (at least no lawyers before or in
court), because when people would simply state the facts, then
there would be no requirement for a _professional_ to deal with
the "fine circumstances" of law. In the end, law isn't easy,
and most normal people will never understand it entirely.
> In any case, you
> do not need evidence to convict anyone. You have a legal system that can
> spend literally millions of dollars for a conviction and a public defender
> that will receive $250. per day per defendant. Usually their requests for
> extra funds for investigative resources is denied.
In German law, a judge (who decides about guilty or not guilty,
instead of a jury) can honor evidence as he wishes. The same
applies for any panel. He can "interpret" the evidence, ignore
it, or fully rely on it without questioning it. By the letter
of the law, he's "free and independant" and only subject to
the law - he's "god" in his courtroom.
> The fact that anyone is
> ever found not guilty is actually quite unusual. If you don't think so, you
> watch way to much TV. Spend a few months at your local court house and see
> what really happens.
In fact, I have (some years ago), and what I saw almost destroyed
the last remains of my belief in justice. "In heaven you have
justice, on earth you have the law." :-/
I don't know if US courts are slow and weak as most German courts.
Slow, because after the crime, two up to 4 years will pass until
something happens in court. Weak, because after that time, the
judge just says, like, "Don't do that again!", and the case is
closed with probation.
Anyway, the legal system definitely has its purpose. The prosecutor
_has to_ provide evidence, and the court has to value the evidence.
There's "no job" for the defendant in that system, and exercising
a right is not equivalent pleading guilty. Or at least, it should
be that way.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150219150612.88c2b0d0.freebsd>