marmel: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.
I think we are not at a complete standstill yet. For instance you appear to implicitly agree with me that more false witness testimony would occur with that change.
You believe that this false witness testimony will always be detected by the police management and normal court process and it will never lead to cases in which innocent persons are charged and then convicted. I contend this is entirely unsupportable.
Surely it is logical that an increase in the frequency of false witness testimony will inevitably lead to innocent persons being charged and convicted? It seems to me the rate is simply subject to the law of probability, and that probability would inevitably increase with a change.
If the evidence was that good in the first place, the witness testimony would not be needed ensure that conviction occurred.
I am not arguing that hundreds and hundreds of bad convictions would occur in the innocent person charged scenario and due to false witness testimony. But I am asserting that the rate of bad convictions would inevitably increase.