Co-Operating with Police!

Forums › Off topic › Co-Operating with Police!

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

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#837067 14-Jun-2013 21:27

1080p:
Klipspringer:
1080p:

What you're saying is that you would be fine with Police having the power to haul anyone to the station for an interview if the Police suspect them of witnessing something illegal? This is more ludicrous than I imagined.

There is incredibly good reason we don't allow our Police to simply detain anyone without cause: this power is abused all over the world!

Oh my word. Jeez mate! you still missing my point .... Im not saying the police should be able to detain anyone without a cause.

Detaining a witness because you suspect they may know something and aren't telling you is about as close to holding without cause as you can get.

You quote a portion of the article that deals with the inability of the Police to arrest without cause saying the law is 'a joke' while simultaneously saying you only want to force people who have been convicted by courts for withholding evidence? Make up your mind.

Are you being obtuse or trolling?

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#837070 14-Jun-2013 22:14

Dratsab:
1080p:
Klipspringer:
1080p:

What you're saying is that you would be fine with Police having the power to haul anyone to the station for an interview if the Police suspect them of witnessing something illegal? This is more ludicrous than I imagined.

There is incredibly good reason we don't allow our Police to simply detain anyone without cause: this power is abused all over the world!

Oh my word. Jeez mate! you still missing my point .... Im not saying the police should be able to detain anyone without a cause.

Detaining a witness because you suspect they may know something and aren't telling you is about as close to holding without cause as you can get.

You quote a portion of the article that deals with the inability of the Police to arrest without cause saying the law is 'a joke' while simultaneously saying you only want to force people who have been convicted by courts for withholding evidence? Make up your mind.

Are you being obtuse or trolling?

Not in the slightest. Here are the quotes I am referring to in case you haven't been following the discussion.

Klipspringer: Oh my word. Jeez mate! you still missing my point .... Im not saying the police should be able to detain anyone without a cause.

Holding witnesses without cause is wrong.

Klipspringer: From the article:
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the inability of police to interview reluctant witnesses or suspects was "appalling".

"The law should be changed so the police have the opportunity to speak with witnesses or suspects at the earliest opportunities," he said.

"At present you are getting the accused, or witnesses who do not want to finger the accused, colluding to take the police off the scent."

Police can only detain people for questioning if they are under arrest. Suspects under arrest still had the right to silence.

You think the above is fare? I don't
The above law is a joke. Some people may think its the outcome of moving forward. I see it as the outcome of moving backwards.

The fact that Police are not able to detain or interview witnesses without cause is 'a joke' and something considered unfair.

In case you can't see, the positions are contradictory.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#837090 15-Jun-2013 01:08

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

So, you want a law that empowers the Police, after a Judicial warrant is obtained, to detain a suspect indefinitely until he 'tells the truth'. Is that a fair summary?

Would it not be simpler, for the Police, to arrest, obtain the coercion warrant, and wait, for each suspect until someone confessed? Be it 3, 5, 10 people?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#837103 15-Jun-2013 07:51

1080p:

In case you can't see, the positions are contradictory.

How can that be a contradiction? The one part of my post is written by me.
The other is a quote from the newspaper article.

I quoted the article to point out how the current law is not working. "Its a joke". Not as a backup to my points.

This is starting to get tiresome now. You keep missing what I am saying. Maybe its intentional, maybe not?

Have to agree you now trolling.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#837143 15-Jun-2013 10:28

Personally, if the Police had this power, then one of the first things I would do as a defense lawyer cross-examining any witness is ask "was this statement/evidence given under threat of compulsion" (or similar).

If I was a witness (hypothetically one who *really* didn't want to testify for whatever reason and was being compelled by threats of in incarceration - I would make two responses to questions:

Question 1: "Are you sure you really saw that"?
Answer: "No"
Question 2: "Why did you sign a statement saying you did see it"
Answer" "because they told me I could go to jail for X years if I didn't sign a statement that I saw it".

If I were in the jury box and it was clear that the witness was giving evidence reluctantly and because they had been compelled to do so, I would immediately discount it as worthless. Statements extracted from reluctant witnesses using compulsion are worthless.

While I want scumbags who commit horrible crimes to be convicted as much as the rest of you, I don't think this change would make justice better - it would make it worse. Remember the old maxim "I would rather ten guilty men went free than one innocent man was convicted", this proposal would inevitably be used to generate false evidence against innocent people.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#837169 15-Jun-2013 11:07

networkn: With the Cru situation, many members of the family knew and wouldn't talk. In that case, I believe the situation should be, put them all in separate cells. Offer the first one to speak immunity unless they committed the crime themselves, and everyone else gets 30-90 days in Jail for obstruction of justice :)

Sorry, I did not see this reply of yours on my first reading and therefore did not respond.

It is debatable if your proposed power would have had any effect at all in the Chris/Cru case. It does not prevent giving a false statement and sticking to it. That will become more likely. It is naive to think that police can sort out the mess and charge the right person in every case and circumstance.

As well as an increase in the rate of innocent people convicted this change would also see increased appeals and success by guilty people due to inconsistencies in compelled statements.

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