Co-Operating with Police!

Forums › Off topic › Co-Operating with Police!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#829913 3-Jun-2013 07:58

1080p: Wow... I'll leave this country if my right to silence is ever taken away.

Don't go to Italy though. Lest you are subjected to the same questioning techniques as Amanda Knox.
Shame PrimeTV don't do on-demand, great 60 Minutes article on it.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#829918 3-Jun-2013 08:14

gzt:
marmel: We all deserve to be protected against those that would kill defenseless children or set someone on fire and if it means that those who have information which could lead to the perpetrator being brought to justice have more pressure put on them to co-operate with the police then I am happy to see some of their own personal freedoms be removed if they fail to do this.

And what if innocent people are convicted because someone was under pressure of punishment to produce information they did not have? There are good reasons our legal system has evolved these protections.

See my last post, already covered off the numerous checks in the system to prevent this.

I am not talking about witnesses to a shoplifter being forced to provide evidence, I am thinking more along the lines of any offences subject to life imprisonment so this is restricted to murder, manslaughter and certain drug dealing offences.

It is ridiculous to suggest that someone is going to be charged with one of these offences based on the witness evidence of one person without substantial corroborating evidence.

If you take the case previously mentioned where the person was burnt to death if all persons at the address where made to provide statements things would quickly unwind for those responsible, regardless of how they try to "get their story straight" before being interviewed. Inconsistencies quickly appear and when challenged over these more lies generally just digs a deeper hole.

If you want to see what happens when everyone is forced to provide evidence look at the Kahui twins inquest, the Coroner didn't have too much trouble pointing to the person responsible after Chris Kahui gave evidence which didn't match the facts, in other words he was lying. It's a great way to get to the truth, being forced to give evidence under oath like coronial inquests, pretty hard to hide behind a lawyer when your in the witness box.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#829986 3-Jun-2013 12:04

gzt:
marmel: We all deserve to be protected against those that would kill defenseless children or set someone on fire and if it means that those who have information which could lead to the perpetrator being brought to justice have more pressure put on them to co-operate with the police then I am happy to see some of their own personal freedoms be removed if they fail to do this.

And what if innocent people are convicted because someone was under pressure of punishment to produce information they did not have? There are good reasons our legal system has evolved these protections.

marmel: See my last post, already covered off the numerous checks in the system to prevent this. [inserted here: In serious cases evidence would have been examined by not only several levels of police management but also by lawyers working for the crown, defence lawyers who can make submissions to have matters dismissed, a judge at various pre-trial procedures and finally a judge or jury at any subsequent trial.]

This is misleading. The defense, judge and jury do not have access to the police investigation. They do not have access to information gained in lines of inquiry which the police consider unhelpful or not relevant to the prosecution case and therefore will not be used at trial. Significant resources are needed by the defense to discover these issues, often private investigators.

marmel: I am not talking about witnesses to a shoplifter being forced to provide evidence, I am thinking more along the lines of any offences subject to life imprisonment so this is restricted to murder, manslaughter and certain drug dealing offences.

marmel: It is ridiculous to suggest that someone is going to be charged with one of these offences based on the witness evidence of one person without substantial corroborating evidence.

Well, the corroborating evidence you refer to may be circumstantial but it it is still admissible evidence. Witness testimony makes a conviction more likely, which is a very good reason for seeking it.

marmel: If you take the case previously mentioned where the person was burnt to death if all persons at the address where made to provide statements things would quickly unwind for those responsible, regardless of how they try to "get their story straight" before being interviewed. Inconsistencies quickly appear and when challenged over these more lies generally just digs a deeper hole.

On the other hand an investigator may find the case becomes a morass of allegations as persons try to protect themselves from allegations of others and the threat of imprisonment at the same time. In the Italian case mentioned earlier, the system tries to guard against this with additional laws against false allegations, which just makes a bigger and more complex morass.

marmel: If you want to see what happens when everyone is forced to provide evidence look at the Kahui twins inquest, the Coroner didn't have too much trouble pointing to the person responsible after Chris Kahui gave evidence which didn't match the facts, in other words he was lying. It's a great way to get to the truth, being forced to give evidence under oath like coronial inquests, pretty hard to hide behind a lawyer when your in the witness box.

I take your point, but there is no accused, no defence, and no conviction in that context, and currently witnesses are under no pressure. If the same occurred in court it would be a far more complex scenario.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#829991 3-Jun-2013 12:21

1080p:
marmel: Having some controls over what we can and can't do is part of living in a decent society.

Some will argue for stricter control and tougher laws and some will argue that we don't need to have much governance at all and that we should all live in harmony farting rainbows and loving one another.

I think the ideal sits somewhere in between but under current laws it can swing too far to the left under certain circumstances, some of which have already been mentioned above.

I also automatically ignore those that include fingernail pulling and torture in their argument as they have obviously run out of genuine points to make or have spent too much time in the chemtrails thread.

We all deserve to be protected against those that would kill defenseless children or set someone on fire and if it means that those who have information which could lead to the perpetrator being brought to justice have more pressure put on them to co-operate with the police then I am happy to see some of their own personal freedoms be removed if they fail to do this.

You make a fatal assumption here. The police have no obligation to protect you. All they care about is law enforcement and providing cases which are able to be effectively prosecuted by the Crown. This is their job and their only responsibility.

A thought experiment: do you think the police would actively pursue other possibilities if they discovered (potentially incorrect) evidence that you were the perpetrator of an illegal act they were investigating? In a perfect world they would check everything but this in unlikely to happen in reality. If you had previously given a statement to the police as a witness which then conflicted with what they discover suddenly you are suspect number one and your statement is used as evidence against you. Regardless of your innocence you just built a case against yourself by opening your mouth.

If I choose to remain silent when interviewed by the police that is my right and that choice should never be taken away from any citizen.

The number of people in here willing to throw away their civil liberties as soon as something tragic occurs in the name of 'safety' makes me cringe.

To paraphrase a famous Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

From the Police web site....

The functions of the New Zealand Police include:

Keeping the peace
Maintaining public safety
Law enforcement
Crime prevention
Community support and reassurance
National security
Participation in policing activities outside New Zealand
Emergency management.

One of the primary roles of the New Zealand is public protection.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#829995 3-Jun-2013 12:33

I'm at work at the moment but in brief the defense do have access to all information gathered by police, relevant or not. Disclosure rules are reasonably strict and only under specific circumstances can police with hold information.

However on the other hand presently the defense do not have to disclose information they hold unless it is presented at any per-trial hearings. For instance if a defendant has not provided a statement the police have no idea at all what he/she is going to say in the box.

Thankfully this is changing this year and the new system will see more contact between the crown, defense and judiciary before matters go to trial.

If you haven't done so before I recommend you spend a day or two sitting in the public gallery and you will quickly appreciate how robust matters have to be before they end up at a defended fixture. It is also interesting to watch judges rolling their eyes when some defendants and witnesses are giving evidence, the changes coming this year will hopefully address this.

There is a well known quote down this end of the country from a prominent defense lawyer who told the crown prosecutor that they were always at a disadvantage as crown witnesses have to tell the truth.

Take that as you will but to those that have been involved in the justice process for a number of years will tell you it does have a ring of truth to it.

A lot of people who watch too much TV think the number one aim of the police is to put people before the court, this simply is not true. The first objective when attending any incident is to find out what happened and resolve it in the most appropriate manner. More and more cases are now dealt with without going to court via per charge warnings and the like.

Attending any serious incident involving death finding the truth is paramount, not just so the matter can be dealt with before the court but also for the next of kin or perhaps the local coroner.

Suggesting that people are going to be falsely accused should witnesses be forced to give evidence simply doesn't add up. There is no difference between people falsely accusing someone voluntarily and falsely accusing someone under duress, the same process is involved in dealing with such information regardless.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#829997 3-Jun-2013 12:44

So sad to hear all these people not wanting to talk to the police.
Ill gladly chip in for a charter plane to get rid of them.

If people in general pulled their head out of their arses and spoke to not only authoritys but the people concerned NZ would be a much better place.
Far too many blind eyes turned.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#830002 3-Jun-2013 12:54

marmel: I'm at work at the moment but in brief the defense do have access to all information gathered by police, relevant or not. Disclosure rules are reasonably strict and only under specific circumstances can police with hold information.

Thanks for the clarification there. I will seek specific information.

marmel: Suggesting that people are going to be falsely accused should witnesses be forced to give evidence simply doesn't add up. There is no difference between people falsely accusing someone voluntarily and falsely accusing someone under duress, the same process is involved in dealing with such information regardless.

False accusation is not a problem in itself. The point is that false testimony will inevitably increase under the system you propose. An increase in false testimony will inevitably increase the chances of convicting innocents and allowing the guilty to go free. Introducing this change does not simply cause witnesses with information to reveal it and have no other effects. It introduces a complexity which will inevitably lead to the conviction of innocent people in greater numbers.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#830005 3-Jun-2013 12:58

gzt:
marmel: I'm at work at the moment but in brief the defense do have access to all information gathered by police, relevant or not. Disclosure rules are reasonably strict and only under specific circumstances can police with hold information.

Thanks for the clarification there. I will seek specific information.

marmel: Suggesting that people are going to be falsely accused should witnesses be forced to give evidence simply doesn't add up. There is no difference between people falsely accusing someone voluntarily and falsely accusing someone under duress, the same process is involved in dealing with such information regardless.

False accusation is not a problem in itself. The point is that false testimony will inevitably increase under the system you propose. An increase in false testimony will inevitably increase the chances of convicting innocents and allowing the guilty to go free. Introducing this change does not simply cause witnesses with information to reveal it and have no other effects. It introduces a complexity which will inevitably lead to the conviction of innocent people in greater numbers.

I just don't see any way false convictions will increase given the amount of forensic and other work that goes into serious investigations, not even taking into account the huge amount of public scrutiny that goes along with it as well.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree on this one, we could both probably go on forever.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#830008 3-Jun-2013 13:01

TheUngeek: So sad to hear all these people not wanting to talk to the police.

Can't speak for others but that is not my position in this discussion.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#830081 3-Jun-2013 16:24

TheUngeek: So sad to hear all these people not wanting to talk to the police.
Ill gladly chip in for a charter plane to get rid of them.

If people in general pulled their head out of their arses and spoke to not only authoritys but the people concerned NZ would be a much better place.
Far too many blind eyes turned.

I never said this. Indeed, if I was a witness to a serious crime then I almost certainly would talk to the Police.

What would worry me was if the the Police had the ability to compel someone who didn't want to talk to give evidence, backed by the weight of serious penalties including jail if they didn't - as some seem to be advocating here. I understand why people want it, as no one wants to see serious criminals get away with it. However, the risk is that some evidence obtained under this sort of compulsion would inevitably be tainted, and some investigators who were determined to "get their man" would inevitably use it to put pressure on people to say what was wanted.

I don't, however, think that the country would be a better place if people "spoke to the authorities" every time they saw or suspected a petty misdemeanour. I think it would be a distinctly unpleasant place if everyone was peering over their neighbours fences and filing reports if they saw something they didn't like. That scenario isn't too far from East Germany, where people were literally too scared to say something politically incorrect (in the East German context of incorrect) in the cafeteria at work because there was a chance of being reported. No thanks!

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#830087 3-Jun-2013 16:33

There is a far cry from speaking up about an assault, theft, drug dealing or drink driving to reporting to the Stasi!
For one we don't have a Stasi

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#830106 3-Jun-2013 17:11

KiwiNZ:
1080p:
marmel: Having some controls over what we can and can't do is part of living in a decent society.

Some will argue for stricter control and tougher laws and some will argue that we don't need to have much governance at all and that we should all live in harmony farting rainbows and loving one another.

I think the ideal sits somewhere in between but under current laws it can swing too far to the left under certain circumstances, some of which have already been mentioned above.

I also automatically ignore those that include fingernail pulling and torture in their argument as they have obviously run out of genuine points to make or have spent too much time in the chemtrails thread.

We all deserve to be protected against those that would kill defenseless children or set someone on fire and if it means that those who have information which could lead to the perpetrator being brought to justice have more pressure put on them to co-operate with the police then I am happy to see some of their own personal freedoms be removed if they fail to do this.

You make a fatal assumption here. The police have no obligation to protect you. All they care about is law enforcement and providing cases which are able to be effectively prosecuted by the Crown. This is their job and their only responsibility.

A thought experiment: do you think the police would actively pursue other possibilities if they discovered (potentially incorrect) evidence that you were the perpetrator of an illegal act they were investigating? In a perfect world they would check everything but this in unlikely to happen in reality. If you had previously given a statement to the police as a witness which then conflicted with what they discover suddenly you are suspect number one and your statement is used as evidence against you. Regardless of your innocence you just built a case against yourself by opening your mouth.

If I choose to remain silent when interviewed by the police that is my right and that choice should never be taken away from any citizen.

The number of people in here willing to throw away their civil liberties as soon as something tragic occurs in the name of 'safety' makes me cringe.

To paraphrase a famous Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

From the Police web site....

The functions of the New Zealand Police include:
Keeping the peace
Maintaining public safety
Law enforcement
Crime prevention
Community support and reassurance
National security
Participation in policing activities outside New Zealand
Emergency management.
One of the primary roles of the New Zealand is public protection.

You misunderstand my definition of 'protection'. Police have no responsibility to protect you from false imprisonment or false arrest. If, through no fault of your own and by telling only the truth, your statement leads to you be arrested and potentially convicted of a crime the police have no responsibility to investigate alternative possibilities. In fact, if they find a promising lead or there is a complete lack of evidence they will actively disregard other alternatives. This is what I mean when I say that the police have no responsibility to protect you. Their responsibility is not to find the truth but to build a prosecutable case. Obviously, this does not imply that all officers disregard the truth but it can happen and the lines can be incredibly blurry and uncertain. Just look at the Bain debacle or any of the countless other cases throughout history.

The terms 'safety' and 'reassurance' are but marketing speak when it comes to a police investigation. If keeping your mouth shut may prevent false detention then it should always remain a right.

I think too many people in this thread are willing to toss aside their civil liberties when confronted with a tragic incident but cannot see the forest for the trees when it comes to what the destruction of that liberty will mean elsewhere.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#830107 3-Jun-2013 17:12

TheUngeek: There is a far cry from speaking up about an assault, theft, drug dealing or drink driving to reporting to the Stasi!
For one we don't have a Stasi

Why would we need our own Stasi when our current system has proven perfectly adequate at imprisoning innocent people?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#830116 3-Jun-2013 17:13

Skolink:
1080p: Wow... I'll leave this country if my right to silence is ever taken away.

Don't go to Italy though. Lest you are subjected to the same questioning techniques as Amanda Knox.
Shame PrimeTV don't do on-demand, great 60 Minutes article on it.

I've read about this extensively and what happened to her was a violation of her human rights.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#830125 3-Jun-2013 17:22

1080p: (Truncated)
You misunderstand my definition of 'protection'. Police have no responsibility to protect you from false imprisonment or false arrest. If, through no fault of your own and by telling only the truth, your statement leads to you be arrested and potentially convicted of a crime the police have no responsibility to investigate alternative possibilities. In fact, if they find a promising lead or there is a complete lack of evidence they will actively disregard other alternatives. This is what I mean when I say that the police have no responsibility to protect you. Their responsibility is not to find the truth but to build a prosecutable case. Obviously, this does not imply that all officers disregard the truth but it can happen and the lines can be incredibly blurry and uncertain. Just look at the Bain debacle or any of the countless other cases throughout history.

The terms 'safety' and 'reassurance' are but marketing speak when it comes to a police investigation. If keeping your mouth shut may prevent false detention then it should always remain a right.

I think too many people in this thread are willing to toss aside their civil liberties when confronted with a tragic incident but cannot see the forest for the trees when it comes to what the destruction of that liberty will mean elsewhere.

The problem though, is that we have to have one law for all.

So we either have a law that potentially allows for punishing an innocent person, or a law that allows guilty parties to walk free...

Your example / scenario above does confuse me "If, through no fault of your own and by telling only the truth, your statement leads to you be arrested and potentially convicted of a crime..." What does that mean?

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7