Co-Operating with Police!

Forums › Off topic › Co-Operating with Police!

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

16912 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#830141 3-Jun-2013 17:57

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.

Quic Broadband

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

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#830145 3-Jun-2013 18:02

1080p:
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?

You are in severe danger of sounding like:

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#830146 3-Jun-2013 18:04

If the evidence was that good in the first place, the witness testimony would not be needed ensure that conviction occurred.

If the evidence was good we wouldn't need testimony? Hahahahaa that's so funny. Most cases rely heavily on testimony. I assume by evidence you are talking about "forensics" ? You think most cases are solved with forensics without testimony? Your wrong.

gzt

16912 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#830152 3-Jun-2013 18:25

bigal_nz:
gzt: If the evidence was that good in the first place, the witness testimony would not be needed ensure that conviction occurred.

If the evidence was good we wouldn't need testimony? Hahahahaa that's so funny. Most cases rely heavily on testimony. I assume by evidence you are talking about "forensics" ? You think most cases are solved with forensics without testimony? Your wrong.

Well, exactly. You obviously took that and read it out of context. What's funny here and obvious to anyone that read the entire exchange is that you are completely agreeing with me and going a bit further. It is one key reason why a change would inevitably increase bad convictions.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#830214 3-Jun-2013 20:28

MikeSkyrme:
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?

I linked to a video in a previous post in this thread which explains this possibility quite well.

People having the right to refuse to speak does not guarantee that guilty people will walk away but it does guarantee that innocent people at least have the choice to remain so.

I favour a system where every innocent person may go unpunished even if that means some guilty people are allowed to be free.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#830226 3-Jun-2013 20:56

1080p:
MikeSkyrme:
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?

I linked to a video in a previous post in this thread which explains this possibility quite well.

People having the right to refuse to speak does not guarantee that guilty people will walk away but it does guarantee that innocent people at least have the choice to remain so.

I favour a system where every innocent person may go unpunished even if that means some guilty people are allowed to be free.

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

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#830229 3-Jun-2013 20:59

1080p:
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?

The Police do not imprison innocent people.

gzt

16912 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#830230 3-Jun-2013 21:02

Hang on a tic. I hope we are not getting confused here.

The issue we are discussing is the right to silence for 'potential' witnesses.

As far as I know, no one here is suggesting removing the right to silence for persons charged, and later during prosecution as well.

Edit: Linking to the Law Commission paper which enumerates the different and distinct cases where RTS is current.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836087 12-Jun-2013 22:33

KiwiNZ:
1080p:
MikeSkyrme:
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?

I linked to a video in a previous post in this thread which explains this possibility quite well.

People having the right to refuse to speak does not guarantee that guilty people will walk away but it does guarantee that innocent people at least have the choice to remain so.

I favour a system where every innocent person may go unpunished even if that means some guilty people are allowed to be free.

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

Congratulations on falling into the very trap this law is trying to prevent. An innocent person may refuse to speak if they wish and their choice has no reflection on whether or not they are guilty. I seriously hope you are never selected for jury service.

KiwiNZ:
1080p:
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?

The Police do not imprison innocent people.

No police officer has ever arrested and held an innocent person? I think you need to check the news some time.

@gzt: this PDF was linked on page one and you can see my response here.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836121 13-Jun-2013 06:55

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

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#836130 13-Jun-2013 07:20

1080p:
KiwiNZ:
1080p:
MikeSkyrme:
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?

I linked to a video in a previous post in this thread which explains this possibility quite well.

People having the right to refuse to speak does not guarantee that guilty people will walk away but it does guarantee that innocent people at least have the choice to remain so.

I favour a system where every innocent person may go unpunished even if that means some guilty people are allowed to be free.

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

Congratulations on falling into the very trap this law is trying to prevent. An innocent person may refuse to speak if they wish and their choice has no reflection on whether or not they are guilty. I seriously hope you are never selected for jury service.

KiwiNZ:
1080p:
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?

The Police do not imprison innocent people.

No police officer has ever arrested and held an innocent person? I think you need to check the news some time.

@gzt: this PDF was linked on page one and you can see my response here.

the police do not imprison people the Courts do. The police can hold in custody until a Court decides the next step. My statement that the police do not imprison innocent people is correct.

gzt

16912 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#836134 13-Jun-2013 07:36

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

No I don't think so. Except maybe for 1080p's rhetorically extreme position ; ).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836141 13-Jun-2013 08:38

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.

networkn

Networkn
32208 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#836171 13-Jun-2013 09:48

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.

I can't agree with this more. Some of the attitudes displayed in this thread defy belief, it's really disappointing. I can understand (Though don't agree with) staying silent to protect yourself if you are guilty, but closing ranks the way this has happened in the matter that I started this thread to address, and that of the Cru twins and other such crimes is heinous and I would like to vote these people off our beautiful island.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#836217 13-Jun-2013 11:09

networkn:

I can't agree with this more. Some of the attitudes displayed in this thread defy belief, it's really disappointing. I can understand (Though don't agree with) staying silent to protect yourself if you are guilty, but closing ranks the way this has happened in the matter that I started this thread to address, and that of the Cru twins and other such crimes is heinous and I would like to vote these people off our beautiful island.

That would be nice... Voting them off our island.
Imagine a system where the public could vote for the punishment for these animals.

I most certanly would not vote to have them put into a cozy jail, where its nice and warm, hot meals, Sky TV/play stations/x boxes (on taxpayer money) , parole just after a few years for the most horrendous of crimes etc ...

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