Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:29:06 -0600 From: Andrew Gould <andrewlylegould@gmail.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What's in my hard drive? How can I get rid of it? Message-ID: <CAFKhKgqh6m1SUoF94RVKvjutFBSo0zTEC8hoONmRuJfp2v81CQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150219150612.88c2b0d0.freebsd@edvax.de> 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> <20150219150612.88c2b0d0.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:
> 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, ...
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Having been a juror for a murder trial (in the US), I was pleasantly
surprised by the efforts made by the court to give jurors good and clear
instructions about the consideration of evidence. I was also pleased,
during deliberations, that my fellow jurors used those instructions to keep
the discussion of evidence within its proper boundaries. My experience may
not have been the norm; but it certainly wasn't like anything I've seen in
the movies.
As for the topic at hand: At the point that I am concerned about my hard
drives being scoured for evidence without my knowledge, I will learn a
non-technical trade and spend much more time under the sun and trees.
Until then, I'd rather bask in the pleasure of small achievements such
accessing my desktop at work (Win 7) via Citrix through a desktop at home
(Win 8.1 Pro) from my laptop (FreeBSD 10.1 amd64) via freerdp. :-)
Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFKhKgqh6m1SUoF94RVKvjutFBSo0zTEC8hoONmRuJfp2v81CQ>