Co-Operating with Police!

Forums › Off topic › Co-Operating with Police!

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

1065 posts

Uber Geek

#836327 13-Jun-2013 14:00

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

why would an innocent person refuse to speak about their innocence? Someone refusing to speak does so to hide their guilt.

dickytim: We are so worried about our legal rights on this subject we have forgotten about our moral obligation as a human being...

Two brilliant posts which perfectly sum up everything in this thread.

If somebody has been murdered. And there was a witness in the house at the time, witnesses knows what happened, and refuses to speak. Well that witness should have no right to silence. If they want silence, then they should have the right to silence in a police cell. Where are the rights of the deceased? (Or does she no longer have any because she is now dead?)

Unfortunately many people in our society lack a moral compass. They don't believe that they have any moral obligations in life. Life revolves around these people, they put themselves first, think only of themselves, take from life whatever they can for free. Give back nothing. Free loaders! Our society is full of these people. Its therefore up to the law to force that moral obligation on such humans. In this case, the law is failing the poor woman who was burnt to death.

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a GBH or manslaughter case?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836328 13-Jun-2013 14:06

loceff13:

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a murder?

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836331 13-Jun-2013 14:10

loceff13:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

why would an innocent person refuse to speak about their innocence? Someone refusing to speak does so to hide their guilt.

dickytim: We are so worried about our legal rights on this subject we have forgotten about our moral obligation as a human being...

Two brilliant posts which perfectly sum up everything in this thread.

If somebody has been murdered. And there was a witness in the house at the time, witnesses knows what happened, and refuses to speak. Well that witness should have no right to silence. If they want silence, then they should have the right to silence in a police cell. Where are the rights of the deceased? (Or does she no longer have any because she is now dead?)

Unfortunately many people in our society lack a moral compass. They don't believe that they have any moral obligations in life. Life revolves around these people, they put themselves first, think only of themselves, take from life whatever they can for free. Give back nothing. Free loaders! Our society is full of these people. Its therefore up to the law to force that moral obligation on such humans. In this case, the law is failing the poor woman who was burnt to death.

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a GBH or manslaughter case?

Why would he? These aren't as serious crimes.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836397 13-Jun-2013 15:41

Klipspringer:
loceff13:

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a murder?

no

Of course the Police would still have this power in B&E cases too...

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836399 13-Jun-2013 15:44

1080p:
Klipspringer:
loceff13:

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a murder?

no

Of course the Police would still have this power in B&E cases too...

Well it's easy to say compulsion to comply would only apply in crimes rated x or above surely.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836421 13-Jun-2013 16:15

networkn:
1080p:
Klipspringer:
loceff13:

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a murder?

no

Of course the Police would still have this power in B&E cases too...

Well it's easy to say compulsion to comply would only apply in crimes rated x or above surely.

If speaking is compulsory for crimes 'rated' x and above why not for crimes rated below too? After all criminals are bad and if you're not a criminal then you have nothing to be afraid of, right?

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836424 13-Jun-2013 16:21

1080p:
networkn:
1080p:
Klipspringer:
loceff13:

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a murder?

no

Of course the Police would still have this power in B&E cases too...

Well it's easy to say compulsion to comply would only apply in crimes rated x or above surely.

If speaking is compulsory for crimes 'rated' x and above why not for crimes rated below too? After all criminals are bad and if you're not a criminal then you have nothing to be afraid of, right?

Hi. Yes, simplistically thinking, yes, if you see someone shoplift a $1 packet of gum and you don't speak up if questioned, you should be held in prison until you speak. It seems entirely reasonable to apply the same logic to those crimes which involve rape, murder, etc..

/me shakes his head

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836469 13-Jun-2013 17:18

1080p:
networkn:
1080p:
Klipspringer:
loceff13:

Would you feel this strongly if the crime was only a B&E rather than a murder?

no

Of course the Police would still have this power in B&E cases too...

Well it's easy to say compulsion to comply would only apply in crimes rated x or above surely.

If speaking is compulsory for crimes 'rated' x and above why not for crimes rated below too? After all criminals are bad and if you're not a criminal then you have nothing to be afraid of, right?

You asked me if I would still feel strongly about a B&E case. I said my answer would be no.

But I would still fully support making this compulsory for witnesses in all crimes.

Its no different to being "forced" to produce a drivers licence when being pulled over by a cop. Or being "forced" to appear in court. Whats the point of being "forced" to appear in court, but having the right to keep your mouth shut? A waist of everyone's time and money if you ask me. Its a crime to ignore a summons to court. But its not a crime to keep your mouth shut?

Edit: sorry got a but mixed up with who asked the question there.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#836575 13-Jun-2013 21:58

Wow.

I have read this thread from beginning to end. I started off with an attitude of 'those bastards need to rot in jail', but reading most of the arguments in support of that position showed me one thing:

You are advocating that we should all be under a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
You are advocating that the police should be able to hold and imprison YOU until they decide you have 'told the truth'.

Oh, sure, we all want child killers, molestors, rapists, murderers etc in jail. But your new, brilliant ideas on the law wont get that.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836577 13-Jun-2013 22:03

Brendan: Wow.

I have read this thread from beginning to end. I started off with an attitude of 'those bastards need to rot in jail', but reading most of the arguments in support of that position showed me one thing:

You are advocating that we should all be under a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
You are advocating that the police should be able to hold and imprison YOU until they decide you have 'told the truth'.

Oh, sure, we all want child killers, molestors, rapists, murderers etc in jail. But your new, brilliant ideas on the law wont get that.

Actually like a lot of things in the law, it's open to interpretation and discretion, there are extreme views on both sides. You are using extreme examples when in actual reality it wouldn't be like that. The current system is a complete failure when cases like this and the Cru one let someone who has committed a crime get away scot free, because the witnesses refuse to co-operate.

In reality the right to enforce this type of solution could be setup to require a majority vote by a grand jury, and this would minimize abuse and provide some balance.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#836601 13-Jun-2013 22:56

networkn:
Brendan: Wow.

I have read this thread from beginning to end. I started off with an attitude of 'those bastards need to rot in jail', but reading most of the arguments in support of that position showed me one thing:

You are advocating that we should all be under a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
You are advocating that the police should be able to hold and imprison YOU until they decide you have 'told the truth'.

Oh, sure, we all want child killers, molestors, rapists, murderers etc in jail. But your new, brilliant ideas on the law wont get that.

Actually like a lot of things in the law, it's open to interpretation and discretion, there are extreme views on both sides. You are using extreme examples when in actual reality it wouldn't be like that. The current system is a complete failure when cases like this and the Cru one let someone who has committed a crime get away scot free, because the witnesses refuse to co-operate.

In reality the right to enforce this type of solution could be setup to require a majority vote by a grand jury, and this would minimize abuse and provide some balance.

The problem is Andre, it doesn't actually work in practice.

There are paradoxical logic problems with it.
There are failures to account for human nature.
And there are emotional over reactions.
Historical and contemporary examples of it are full of problems.

I'll explain them in order.

1. If you have enough evidence to justify the coercion of a suspect prior to Trial, you have enough evidence to just go to trial in the first place. Unless you are suggesting suspicion is enough?

2. People get things wrong. Including the police. Right here in NZ, we have numerous examples of police not only getting things wrong, but in some cases even falsifying evidence. Also, witnesses are wrong more often than right. People are terrible as witnesses. Also, suspects get things wrong - such as details of what they were doing; they make silly comments that can be used out of context, and they tell lies for all sorts of reasons. If you hold them under coercion, you multiply ALL of this. Guantanamo Bay prison is a perfect example of this.

3. We all hate the crimes listed here. The murders, and other rapes, molestation, etc. and we naturally want justice. We want the bad guy punished, and an example made. But the problem with anger is it dulls the intellect and makes us regret things later on. It does not make us logical, or methodical. In the end it's a selfish reaction: YOU want justice NOW. DON'T bother me with DETAILS! MAKE THEM TALK! And what if someone confesses just to end the coercion? The real criminal goes free. You want that on your conscience? Or what if you coerce the wrong, innocent, person and they commit suicide? It happens. You want that on your conscience? Wrong time, wrong place? Could be you next.

4. We used to have a system of law like that. Based of here say, coercion and circumstantial evidence. A previous round of reforms did away with it. You want the clock turned back. Also, some countries still have that system. They are all 3rd world countries, most of them are dictatorships. Think Iran, Rwanda, China, North Korea, etc.

I know you think we would be smarter than all that. I know you think you could put in checks and balances, reviews, science, etc. and it'd all work out good.

But it just doesn't. Power corrupts. Having it go through a Jury first is both superfluous and no help.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#836741 14-Jun-2013 11:18

Brendan:
networkn:
Brendan: Wow.

I have read this thread from beginning to end. I started off with an attitude of 'those bastards need to rot in jail', but reading most of the arguments in support of that position showed me one thing:

You are advocating that we should all be under a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
You are advocating that the police should be able to hold and imprison YOU until they decide you have 'told the truth'.

Oh, sure, we all want child killers, molestors, rapists, murderers etc in jail. But your new, brilliant ideas on the law wont get that.

Actually like a lot of things in the law, it's open to interpretation and discretion, there are extreme views on both sides. You are using extreme examples when in actual reality it wouldn't be like that. The current system is a complete failure when cases like this and the Cru one let someone who has committed a crime get away scot free, because the witnesses refuse to co-operate.

In reality the right to enforce this type of solution could be setup to require a majority vote by a grand jury, and this would minimize abuse and provide some balance.

The problem is Andre, it doesn't actually work in practice.
There are paradoxical logic problems with it.
There are failures to account for human nature.
And there are emotional over reactions.
Historical and contemporary examples of it are full of problems.

I'll explain them in order.

1. If you have enough evidence to justify the coercion of a suspect prior to Trial, you have enough evidence to just go to trial in the first place. Unless you are suggesting suspicion is enough?

2. People get things wrong. Including the police. Right here in NZ, we have numerous examples of police not only getting things wrong, but in some cases even falsifying evidence. Also, witnesses are wrong more often than right. People are terrible as witnesses. Also, suspects get things wrong - such as details of what they were doing; they make silly comments that can be used out of context, and they tell lies for all sorts of reasons. If you hold them under coercion, you multiply ALL of this. Guantanamo Bay prison is a perfect example of this.

3. We all hate the crimes listed here. The murders, and other rapes, molestation, etc. and we naturally want justice. We want the bad guy punished, and an example made. But the problem with anger is it dulls the intellect and makes us regret things later on. It does not make us logical, or methodical. In the end it's a selfish reaction: YOU want justice NOW. DON'T bother me with DETAILS! MAKE THEM TALK! And what if someone confesses just to end the coercion? The real criminal goes free. You want that on your conscience? Or what if you coerce the wrong, innocent, person and they commit suicide? It happens. You want that on your conscience? Wrong time, wrong place? Could tbe you next.

4. We used to have a system of law like that. Based of here say, coercion and circumstantial evidence. A previous round of reforms did away with it. You want the clock turned back. Also, some countries still have that system. They are all 3rd world countries, most of them are dictatorships. Think Iran, Rwanda, China, North Korea, etc.

I know you think we would be smarter than all that. I know you think you could put in checks and balances, reviews, science, etc. and it'd all work out good.

But it just doesn't. Power corrupts. Having it go through a Jury first is both superfluous and no help.

I think pretty much every point you have made is wrong.

In your first point you are talking about suspects. Whilst amongst the groups mentioned in this thread (cru & the burning death) there will possibly be a suspect either before or after statements are taken the point of this thread is about the inability of the law in its current form to make witnesses tell police what they know. There is a HUGE gap between suspecting a person and having enough to go to trial, a HUGE gap.

Point two you claim people get things wrong, yes they do. You also claim witnesses are wrong more than right, completely untrue. Go and sit in court for a week and you will realize the value of witness evidence. I'm not sure if you are speaking about your own experience or not but I can assure you that witness evidence whilst varying from one person to the next on the whole tends to be quite accurate.

With point three you make the mistake others have made in this thread of assuming that if one person produces a false statement for whatever reason this means someone will be convicted and locked away. "Will you be next", you are guilty here of your own argument in using emotional phrases. Guess what, people ALREADY provide false statements to police, it happens EVERY DAY of the week. It is the job of the judicial process, including police gathering evidence, to balance the evidence and it quickly becomes apparent who is telling lies.

Trying to bring in comparisons to countries like North Korea and Iran really does you no justice. There is such a large gulf between the countries you mentioned and New Zealand even evil kenievel couldn't have cleared it on his best day. I think these type of comments are normally referred to as scaremongering and used by those that have run a bit short of rational argument.

What is being suggested from those that are supporting this idea is for serious crimes, punishable by life imprisonment, the police should have the ability to ensure witnesses to such crimes provide statements to assist police in putting the person allegedly responsible before the court. This may mean that a jury looks at the circumstances first and makes that call on whether to compell those witnesses. You brush this idea aside as being no help but for serious crimes our whole judicial process is based upon the decision of 12 persons selected from our population.

Like I have suggested before witnesses can already be compelled to give evidence in certain hearings, mainly coroners inquests. Do you have a problem with this as well? I also note there has been very little comment from those against this idea about that CRU inquest which finished with the Coroner stating that he believed Chris Kahui was responsible for the deaths of those kids, this after hearing evidence from ALL witnesses.

I can appreciate there will always need to be a balance between personal freedom and laws that we must adhere to. I believe that in certain cases though moving the goal posts slightly and removing some of that personal freedom can be done with the appropriate checks in place without jeopardizing the type of freedom we enjoy.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836746 14-Jun-2013 11:25

The problem is Andre, it doesn't actually work in practice.
There are paradoxical logic problems with it.
There are failures to account for human nature.
And there are emotional over reactions.
Historical and contemporary examples of it are full of problems.

I'll explain them in order.

Has anyone ever accused you of coming across in a patronizing way? Is it your intent?

I can appreciate there will always need to be a balance between personal freedom and laws that we must adhere to. I believe that in certain cases though moving the goal posts slightly and removing some of that personal freedom can be done with the appropriate checks in place without jeopardizing the type of freedom we enjoy.

This is the point I was trying to make, you did well to make it again so eloquently.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836748 14-Jun-2013 11:29

Brendan:

You are advocating that we should all be under a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
You are advocating that the police should be able to hold and imprison YOU until they decide you have 'told the truth'.

WOW talk about picking up half a story. Nobody is advocating "guilty until being proven innocent".

Keeping one's mouth shut is a way for the guilty to protect themselves. Its only protecting the guilty.

Telling the police what you witnessed in a crime is a moral obligation. Most people will do it regardless and its a way of helping with the case. Those that don't want to, well chances are pretty high that they have something to hide.

As for your second point. Its got nothing to with telling the truth either. Its just telling the police "your view" of what happened. Cooperating with the police. As somebody else mentioned, lies are quickly picked up, a story is built and those that lie are interrogated, the truth eventually comes out. (None of that happens if somebody has the right not to talk). In this case the witnesses all shut up, lies could not even be picked up. So no its not just about them deciding what is the truth.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836849 14-Jun-2013 14:00

marmel: I think pretty much every point you have made is wrong.

In your first point you are talking about suspects. Whilst amongst the groups mentioned in this thread (cru & the burning death) there will possibly be a suspect either before or after statements are taken the point of this thread is about the inability of the law in its current form to make witnesses tell police what they know. There is a HUGE gap between suspecting a person and having enough to go to trial, a HUGE gap.

In the burning case the Police will be forced to treat everybody as both a witness and a suspect as without conclusive forensic evidence or accurate statements from neighbours they can't know who was involved or even if it was a crime and not an accident. What you are advocating is giving the police the power to compel a statement from a person who may later be convicted (at least partially) based upon their statement. Regardless of the 'seriousness' (whatever that means) of the crime, this is an absurd position to take because it allows police to force people to potentially incriminate themselves or face prison time. History is scattered with horrific failures of people thinking they could do better than what was done by people before them. Accounting for Human nature is incredibly important and a law change like this is simply repeating a system that has failed in the past because of our nature.

marmel: Point two you claim people get things wrong, yes they do. You also claim witnesses are wrong more than right, completely untrue. Go and sit in court for a week and you will realize the value of witness evidence. I'm not sure if you are speaking about your own experience or not but I can assure you that witness evidence whilst varying from one person to the next on the whole tends to be quite accurate.

This is currently the case and if we want it to remain this way we should not force people to make statements if they do not want to. Imagine the power of witness testimony that has been coerced rather than voluntary. It would be worthless.

marmel: With point three you make the mistake others have made in this thread of assuming that if one person produces a false statement for whatever reason this means someone will be convicted and locked away. "Will you be next", you are guilty here of your own argument in using emotional phrases. Guess what, people ALREADY provide false statements to police, it happens EVERY DAY of the week. It is the job of the judicial process, including police gathering evidence, to balance the evidence and it quickly becomes apparent who is telling lies.

You have made the mistake of misunderstanding this argument. In a case with little evidence and only one witness it is very likely that that person's statement will sway the case either way. In such cases their testimony may very well be what convicts the suspect.

In addition, every statement the police receive is voluntary. No one has to speak on the pain of potential imprisonment. For a good detective this can mean an easier case to solve because while an absence or refusal to provide a statement is not indicative of guilt it can be telling in certain circumstances and allow them to pursue a line of investigation they might not have done otherwise.

Saying that it quickly becomes apparent who is telling lies is overly simplistic and untrue. Incongruities in testimony are quickly visible but they can be for a number of reasons other than 'lies'. If you think Police on a tough case would never coerce a witness to 'remember' certain things on the pain of imprisonment then you are more naive than is healthy.

marmel: Trying to bring in comparisons to countries like North Korea and Iran really does you no justice. There is such a large gulf between the countries you mentioned and New Zealand even evil kenievel couldn't have cleared it on his best day. I think these type of comments are normally referred to as scaremongering and used by those that have run a bit short of rational argument.

What, exactly, do you think separates our society from those like Best Korea, Iran, and Rwanda? I would argue that our legal system would have a lot to do with it. Humans are not fundamentally different in those countries (if you think they are then you're racist) but the presence of a legal system containing appropriate checks and balances ensures we don't descend into similar chaos as exists there. These comments are not scaremongering but a reminder why we have the law we do and the truth that given the leeway people will abuse power given to them.

marmel: What is being suggested from those that are supporting this idea is for serious crimes, punishable by life imprisonment, the police should have the ability to ensure witnesses to such crimes provide statements to assist police in putting the person allegedly responsible before the court. This may mean that a jury looks at the circumstances first and makes that call on whether to compell those witnesses. You brush this idea aside as being no help but for serious crimes our whole judicial process is based upon the decision of 12 persons selected from our population.

This concept sounds good on the surface but if you actually take a moment to consider its implications then you should be abhorred by it. In the same way that child pornography is used as an excuse to justify spying on citizens' online activities or as a 'shield' to justify copyright infringement legislation; compelling witnesses to speak is a thinly veiled way to force people to potentially incriminate themselves during Police interviews.

marmel: Like I have suggested before witnesses can already be compelled to give evidence in certain hearings, mainly coroners inquests. Do you have a problem with this as well? I also note there has been very little comment from those against this idea about that CRU inquest which finished with the Coroner stating that he believed Chris Kahui was responsible for the deaths of those kids, this after hearing evidence from ALL witnesses.

I can appreciate there will always need to be a balance between personal freedom and laws that we must adhere to. I believe that in certain cases though moving the goal posts slightly and removing some of that personal freedom can be done with the appropriate checks in place without jeopardizing the type of freedom we enjoy.

I think compelling someone to speak is always wrong. Imagine being hauled to the police station the morning after a boozy party and being told that unless you Tell Them What Happened™ you may be imprisoned, oh, and by the way if what you say incriminates you it may be used against you in a court of law.

Klipspringer:
Brendan:

You are advocating that we should all be under a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.
You are advocating that the police should be able to hold and imprison YOU until they decide you have 'told the truth'.

WOW talk about picking up half a story. Nobody is advocating "guilty until being proven innocent".

Keeping one's mouth shut is a way for the guilty to protect themselves. Its only protecting the guilty.

Telling the police what you witnessed in a crime is a moral obligation. Most people will do it regardless and its a way of helping with the case. Those that don't want to, well chances are pretty high that they have something to hide.

As for your second point. Its got nothing to with telling the truth either. Its just telling the police "your view" of what happened. Cooperating with the police. As somebody else mentioned, lies are quickly picked up, a story is built and those that lie are interrogated, the truth eventually comes out. (None of that happens if somebody has the right not to talk). In this case the witnesses all shut up, lies could not even be picked up. So no its not just about them deciding what is the truth.

Keeping your mouth shut can be a way of protecting yourself. Once again, take a moment to review the video I posted earlier and remember the example of the man protecting his family. I must have accidentally travelled back in time if I am now alive in a society that thinks making morality law is always a good idea. It is morally reprehensible to sleep with your neighbours wife but not many people will turn down the opportunity if she is attractive and good to go. Should they also be in prison?

Nine times in ten people will speak with Police if they witness criminal activity. This is already the case and incredibly unlikely to change. Simultaneously it is also true that there will be people who refuse to speak for whatever reason and that should be their right. Tragedies like the Kahui case do occur but they are not common and should not be the basis to remove one of the most fundamental rights a citizen of a free society possesses.

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