4 ms·

Prosecutors win over 99% (99.2% in 2007 [1]) cases in Russia. [1]: http://www.forbesrussia.ru/forbes/issue/2008-11/7199-nevinovnyh-net http://www.forbesrussia.

by d0mine 16y ago

Prosecutors win over 99% (99.2% in 2007 [1]) cases in Russia. [1]: http://www.forbesrussia.ru/forbes/issue/2008-11/7199-nevinovnyh-net http://www.forbesrussia.ru/forbes/issue/2008-11/7199-nevinov...

mustpax 16y ago
It's not much of an argument in favor of the status quo to say it could have been worse. The North Korean regime has a worse censorship record than China, but that doesn't make the situation in China any less troubling.
- jerf 16y ago
  What's your target? In a perfect world, a prosecutor only brings a case if they have enough evidence to have a reasonable expectation of winning. I honestly don't know if 90% is a problem, but the natural knee-jerk "fair" outcome of 50% would actually mean that half the time, a prosecutor is bringing a case that they shouldn't have. That sounds like an awfully high rate of false charges to me. 90% doesn't sound so wrong to me, and I don't think that's where the problem lies. The problem is the breadth and variety of ways in which the prosecutor can bring a successful case against you. (This is important because if we're going to push for reform, we want to push for the right things, not just kneejerk that everything is wrong every time we see a statistic.)
  - mustpax 16y ago
    Agreed, the statistic bears further exploration and analysis. A figure like 99% percent does raise some eyebrows, and I would argue, so does 90%. But we shouldn't leave it there.
pg 16y ago
Interesting. I bet this rate would be a useful element in a corruptness index for countries.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  I'd model a criminal conviction as indicative of one of four possibilities: 1) Defendant is guilty and the police did their job right, bringing strong evidence to the prosecutor. 2) Defendant is innocent, but there's a weight of misinterpreted evidence that his defense fails to overcome. 3) Defense is exceptionally shoddy in the face of an average-to-weak prosecutorial case. 4) Corruption. To disentangle the effects of gains in (1) & (4) on increases in the conviction rate, you need a metric of police efficiency that's unaffected by corruption. For instance, a country with DNA or fingerprint forensics will have a higher conviction rate than one without DNA/fingerprints, but as a result of solid police work, not as a result of corruption.
- patio11 16y ago
  Over seven nines of charged cases in Japan most years. 100 pct of all jury trials ever. Do we win? (I do not think it is a very useful metric. Japan has a problem, but it is forcing confessions as the sole investigatory tactic, not corruption. The conviction rates for any Western democracy should be ninety plus, or prosecutors are bringing cases they should know are insufficient, to the detriment of the public and innocent alike.)
  - nandemo 16y ago
    I agree that it's not a very useful metric. On the confessions: Japanese police can detain suspects and question them days on end without allowing them to talk to a lawyer.

by d0mine 16y ago

Prosecutors win over 99% (99.2% in 2007 [1]) cases in Russia. [1]: http://www.forbesrussia.ru/forbes/issue/2008-11/7199-nevinovnyh-net http://www.forbesrussia.ru/forbes/issue/2008-11/7199-nevinov...

mustpax 16y ago

It's not much of an argument in favor of the status quo to say it could have been worse. The North Korean regime has a worse censorship record than China, but that doesn't make the situation in China any less troubling.

jerf 16y ago
What's your target? In a perfect world, a prosecutor only brings a case if they have enough evidence to have a reasonable expectation of winning. I honestly don't know if 90% is a problem, but the natural knee-jerk "fair" outcome of 50% would actually mean that half the time, a prosecutor is bringing a case that they shouldn't have. That sounds like an awfully high rate of false charges to me. 90% doesn't sound so wrong to me, and I don't think that's where the problem lies. The problem is the breadth and variety of ways in which the prosecutor can bring a successful case against you. (This is important because if we're going to push for reform, we want to push for the right things, not just kneejerk that everything is wrong every time we see a statistic.)
- mustpax 16y ago
  Agreed, the statistic bears further exploration and analysis. A figure like 99% percent does raise some eyebrows, and I would argue, so does 90%. But we shouldn't leave it there.

pg 16y ago

Interesting. I bet this rate would be a useful element in a corruptness index for countries.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago
I'd model a criminal conviction as indicative of one of four possibilities: 1) Defendant is guilty and the police did their job right, bringing strong evidence to the prosecutor. 2) Defendant is innocent, but there's a weight of misinterpreted evidence that his defense fails to overcome. 3) Defense is exceptionally shoddy in the face of an average-to-weak prosecutorial case. 4) Corruption. To disentangle the effects of gains in (1) & (4) on increases in the conviction rate, you need a metric of police efficiency that's unaffected by corruption. For instance, a country with DNA or fingerprint forensics will have a higher conviction rate than one without DNA/fingerprints, but as a result of solid police work, not as a result of corruption.
patio11 16y ago
Over seven nines of charged cases in Japan most years. 100 pct of all jury trials ever. Do we win? (I do not think it is a very useful metric. Japan has a problem, but it is forcing confessions as the sole investigatory tactic, not corruption. The conviction rates for any Western democracy should be ninety plus, or prosecutors are bringing cases they should know are insufficient, to the detriment of the public and innocent alike.)
- nandemo 16y ago
  I agree that it's not a very useful metric. On the confessions: Japanese police can detain suspects and question them days on end without allowing them to talk to a lawyer.