10 ms·

I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. I also think prosecutors are absolutely negligent when it comes to the police

I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. I also think prosecutors are absolutely negligent when it comes to the police and others they need a relationship with for their other day to day activities. I've kind of come to the conclusion that we need a _separate_ prosecutor's office for police matters.

tyingq 9y ago
I agree, but want to point out that the plea for a lesser offense system is probably a bigger problem than false testimony. Cops and DA's in the US are allowed to lie through their teeth, at will, to get a plea deal. Often, they are aware the case is really weak, but that the suspect has no money to fight them. It's just as bullying as false testimony, but far more common. I suspect a magnitude more innocent people are screwed by this than by purgery. Other countries, like the UK, seem to have more fair systems.
- gambiting 9y ago
  First of all, other countries don't have the stupid plea system, so prosecutors are not racing to get a plea deal at all cost. And a lot of countries don't even have peer juries(which in my opinion is another crazy invention) - just the judge + experts if needed.
  - nothrabannosir 9y ago
    UK has a jury. And I agree: to an outsider coming from a country without them, it’s insane. I hope I never have to face one.
    - Ntrails 9y ago
      Juries are a way of preventing the "system" having all of the power. A jury of my peers is a different demographic to a well educated but entirely indoctrinated 50 year old judge. They don't see this every day, they won't have built up the same responses that a judge inevitably would. The proverbial headmaster arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than a jury of my peers, to me.
      - gambiting 9y ago
        On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law and can be swayed toward a guilty verdict by the prosecutors even in the absence of evidence - if they "feel" someone is guilty then they vote that way. That is insane to me personally. Yes, a judge might have a bias - but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't - they can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that(the judge can overrule them for gross negligence of their duties but that doesn't happen very often).
        Amezarak 9y ago
        AFAIK you can waive your right to a jury trial and simply appear before a judge in most jurisdictions. In general through, judges have a strong bias towards the prosecution. DAs and judges are often extremely friendly since they work with each other every day. I would say that if you're innocent or your case has any extenuating circumstances, you almost always have a better shot with a jury than a judge. Juries also allow for jury nullification, which allows for unjust laws to be ignored. I dearly wish that jury trials were available in all cases. I recently went through a non-criminal case where justice was decidedly not served. The judge, of course, claimed he "had to follow the law" but his interpretation of the law contradicted the plain-text reading of the relevant statute. I had no choice but to suck it up unless I wanted to drop the rest of my life savings on an appeal. I feel pretty confident a jury would have seen things very differently.
        dghf 9y ago
        > a judge ... can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that The defence can ask a judge to throw out a case on the grounds that there is no evidence on which a jury could reasonably convict.
        talmand 9y ago
        >> On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law I think you're assuming quite a bit on the education, knowledge, and experience of the law on the part of the judge. There is no guarantee that the judge you get knows anything about the law pertaining to your case. >> but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't And yet, judges are reversed all the time on appeal based on the idea that the judge got the law wrong. Plus I'm fairly certain the judge has a great deal more power in the courtroom than the jury. A judge can certainly put you in jail for a period of time just because they feel like it.
    - oldcynic 9y ago
      I've done jury duty and can see there are some flaws in the UK system. Nonetheless I would far rather face a jury trial than any of the alternatives.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Good comment, but confused about the "first of all" lead in. I felt like I already acknowledged this was a US unique problem, and specifically called out the UK system as superior.
  - GFischer 9y ago
    Unfortunately more countries are copying it - my country, Uruguay, just adopted it, and it is awful.
gowld 9y ago
perjury is punishable by 5 years in prison. That's a suitable punishment. The problem is that the law is not enforced.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  Totally agree on enforcement, and probably agree on the term of the punishment. In the vast majority of nonviolent cases I think we as a society tend to be overly punitive with the criminal justice system. Maybe I'm making the same emotional overreaction here.
- naasking 9y ago
  > The problem is that the law is not enforced. I've started to think that prosecutorial discretion is one of the main problems in Western societies. It yields all kinds of injustices, and overly vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen breaking a few laws a day. If prosecutors didn't have a choice on whether to prosecute a case, the law would ultimately be a lot more reasonable because old and unjust laws would more readily be stricken from the books, and there would be no possibility of favouritism.
  - bluntfang 9y ago
    >overly vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen breaking a few laws a day. I've had the idea that the current system we have, which is basically you're not breaking the law unless someone is watching, isn't going to play nice with constant surveillance. Currently, if a law isn't enforced, it's de-facto not the law. Just imagine if computers in people's cars were phoning home to police. How many speeding fines would be issued daily? Failure to (completely) stop at a stop sign? Reckless driving? Look at how China is currently testing the waters with shaming j-walkers[0]. Just wait until this is fully institutionalized. [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-cameras-to-tackle-jaywalkers-in-shenzhen/9567430 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-camer...
    - snowwrestler 9y ago
oldandtired 9y ago
That is the biblical adage of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". If you look very closely into the background of this, one of the express conditions for this applying is that you lied to get someone else punished. You then faced the exact same punishment. So for law enforcement, any lies or withholding of evidence to ensure conviction would automatically mean that the penalty being asked for is applied to all of those law enforcement and prosecutors involved. There would be no "free passes" given to law enforcement or prosecutors. This, of course, will not happen any time soon in most jurisdictions.
pasbesoin 9y ago
For many in the "justice system", in the U.S., it's not about justice, it's about career.
coldtea 9y ago
>I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. One problem with that is that e.g. someone who testified that they show OJ killing the woman would have gotten the "punishment the accused is facing" when OJ was found innocent. So this has the potential to put an innocent man (testifying correctly, but where the accused for BS reasons is free of charges) to jail just as a false testimony now has the potential to do so.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  OJ was not found innocent. Our criminal justice system largely does not find people innocent. It merely finds people "not guilty". I realize that distinction may seem pedantic, but I think it's actually quite relevant in this case. It's not sufficient that someone testified about what they saw, and have the case decided the other way. To start a perjury case against the witness, I would still demand all of the strictures of due process that apply to a criminal defense case. That is, you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness was _lying_ about what they saw. It would absolutely _not_ be sufficient evidence just to have a "not guilty" ruling. You would need to prove that they _could not have seen_ the testimony they provided. Absolutely, this standard would make _some_ prosecutions against police for perjury hard or impossible. However, there are a number of cases that I believe could meet this evidentiary standard that are simply not pursued by the prosecutors office.
  - upvotinglurker 9y ago
    > You would need to prove that they _could not have seen_ the testimony they provided. A problem with this is that people giving false eyewitness testimony often believe they genuinely did see the thing they could not have seen and are telling the truth. So, a system like this would have the potential to punish as "liars" people who simply fell victim to what seem to be built-in foibles of the human memory system. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-... https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.h... (Note I'm not doubting that some witnesses really are consciously lying. The problem would be the potential to sweep up the innocent with the guilty, if the standard used is "what they said they saw is impossible, therefore they are lying." Additional factors showing they were consciously lying would be needed.)
_pmf_ 9y ago
> I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. This conflicts with the feminine imperative.
jakobegger 9y ago
It would probably be sufficient if people who make false testimony would be fired and not allowed to work for law enforcement for a few years.
untog 9y ago
> I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. Theoretically a sound idea, but people misremember things. It is possible to give false testimony without actively lying, and difficult to prove conclusively whether someone is actively deceiving or misremembering.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  This seems like exactly the sort of a thing that the courts deal with on a daily basis.
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  This is why body cams should be mandatory, also for the police officer's benefits - videos can't "misremember". Also police officers should be held to higher standards than the general population when it comes to giving testimony.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  100% true. It's why Canadian judges generally don't convict on testimony unless there were dozens of witnesses and little chance of mistaken identity (the person stayed at the scene the entire time, etc).

tyingq 9y ago

I agree, but want to point out that the plea for a lesser offense system is probably a bigger problem than false testimony. Cops and DA's in the US are allowed to lie through their teeth, at will, to get a plea deal. Often, they are aware the case is really weak, but that the suspect has no money to fight them. It's just as bullying as false testimony, but far more common. I suspect a magnitude more innocent people are screwed by this than by purgery. Other countries, like the UK, seem to have more fair systems.

gambiting 9y ago
First of all, other countries don't have the stupid plea system, so prosecutors are not racing to get a plea deal at all cost. And a lot of countries don't even have peer juries(which in my opinion is another crazy invention) - just the judge + experts if needed.
- nothrabannosir 9y ago
  UK has a jury. And I agree: to an outsider coming from a country without them, it’s insane. I hope I never have to face one.
  - Ntrails 9y ago
    Juries are a way of preventing the "system" having all of the power. A jury of my peers is a different demographic to a well educated but entirely indoctrinated 50 year old judge. They don't see this every day, they won't have built up the same responses that a judge inevitably would. The proverbial headmaster arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than a jury of my peers, to me.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law and can be swayed toward a guilty verdict by the prosecutors even in the absence of evidence - if they "feel" someone is guilty then they vote that way. That is insane to me personally. Yes, a judge might have a bias - but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't - they can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that(the judge can overrule them for gross negligence of their duties but that doesn't happen very often).
      - Amezarak 9y ago
        AFAIK you can waive your right to a jury trial and simply appear before a judge in most jurisdictions. In general through, judges have a strong bias towards the prosecution. DAs and judges are often extremely friendly since they work with each other every day. I would say that if you're innocent or your case has any extenuating circumstances, you almost always have a better shot with a jury than a judge. Juries also allow for jury nullification, which allows for unjust laws to be ignored. I dearly wish that jury trials were available in all cases. I recently went through a non-criminal case where justice was decidedly not served. The judge, of course, claimed he "had to follow the law" but his interpretation of the law contradicted the plain-text reading of the relevant statute. I had no choice but to suck it up unless I wanted to drop the rest of my life savings on an appeal. I feel pretty confident a jury would have seen things very differently.
      - dghf 9y ago
        > a judge ... can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that The defence can ask a judge to throw out a case on the grounds that there is no evidence on which a jury could reasonably convict.
      - talmand 9y ago
        >> On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law I think you're assuming quite a bit on the education, knowledge, and experience of the law on the part of the judge. There is no guarantee that the judge you get knows anything about the law pertaining to your case. >> but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't And yet, judges are reversed all the time on appeal based on the idea that the judge got the law wrong. Plus I'm fairly certain the judge has a great deal more power in the courtroom than the jury. A judge can certainly put you in jail for a period of time just because they feel like it.
  - oldcynic 9y ago
    I've done jury duty and can see there are some flaws in the UK system. Nonetheless I would far rather face a jury trial than any of the alternatives.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Good comment, but confused about the "first of all" lead in. I felt like I already acknowledged this was a US unique problem, and specifically called out the UK system as superior.
- GFischer 9y ago
  Unfortunately more countries are copying it - my country, Uruguay, just adopted it, and it is awful.

gowld 9y ago

perjury is punishable by 5 years in prison. That's a suitable punishment. The problem is that the law is not enforced.

ncallaway 9y ago
Totally agree on enforcement, and probably agree on the term of the punishment. In the vast majority of nonviolent cases I think we as a society tend to be overly punitive with the criminal justice system. Maybe I'm making the same emotional overreaction here.
naasking 9y ago
> The problem is that the law is not enforced. I've started to think that prosecutorial discretion is one of the main problems in Western societies. It yields all kinds of injustices, and overly vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen breaking a few laws a day. If prosecutors didn't have a choice on whether to prosecute a case, the law would ultimately be a lot more reasonable because old and unjust laws would more readily be stricken from the books, and there would be no possibility of favouritism.
- bluntfang 9y ago
  >overly vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen breaking a few laws a day. I've had the idea that the current system we have, which is basically you're not breaking the law unless someone is watching, isn't going to play nice with constant surveillance. Currently, if a law isn't enforced, it's de-facto not the law. Just imagine if computers in people's cars were phoning home to police. How many speeding fines would be issued daily? Failure to (completely) stop at a stop sign? Reckless driving? Look at how China is currently testing the waters with shaming j-walkers[0]. Just wait until this is fully institutionalized. [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-cameras-to-tackle-jaywalkers-in-shenzhen/9567430 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-camer...
  - snowwrestler 9y ago

oldandtired 9y ago

That is the biblical adage of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". If you look very closely into the background of this, one of the express conditions for this applying is that you lied to get someone else punished. You then faced the exact same punishment. So for law enforcement, any lies or withholding of evidence to ensure conviction would automatically mean that the penalty being asked for is applied to all of those law enforcement and prosecutors involved. There would be no "free passes" given to law enforcement or prosecutors. This, of course, will not happen any time soon in most jurisdictions.

pasbesoin 9y ago

For many in the "justice system", in the U.S., it's not about justice, it's about career.

coldtea 9y ago

>I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. One problem with that is that e.g. someone who testified that they show OJ killing the woman would have gotten the "punishment the accused is facing" when OJ was found innocent. So this has the potential to put an innocent man (testifying correctly, but where the accused for BS reasons is free of charges) to jail just as a false testimony now has the potential to do so.

ncallaway 9y ago
OJ was not found innocent. Our criminal justice system largely does not find people innocent. It merely finds people "not guilty". I realize that distinction may seem pedantic, but I think it's actually quite relevant in this case. It's not sufficient that someone testified about what they saw, and have the case decided the other way. To start a perjury case against the witness, I would still demand all of the strictures of due process that apply to a criminal defense case. That is, you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness was _lying_ about what they saw. It would absolutely _not_ be sufficient evidence just to have a "not guilty" ruling. You would need to prove that they _could not have seen_ the testimony they provided. Absolutely, this standard would make _some_ prosecutions against police for perjury hard or impossible. However, there are a number of cases that I believe could meet this evidentiary standard that are simply not pursued by the prosecutors office.
- upvotinglurker 9y ago
  > You would need to prove that they _could not have seen_ the testimony they provided. A problem with this is that people giving false eyewitness testimony often believe they genuinely did see the thing they could not have seen and are telling the truth. So, a system like this would have the potential to punish as "liars" people who simply fell victim to what seem to be built-in foibles of the human memory system. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-... https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.h... (Note I'm not doubting that some witnesses really are consciously lying. The problem would be the potential to sweep up the innocent with the guilty, if the standard used is "what they said they saw is impossible, therefore they are lying." Additional factors showing they were consciously lying would be needed.)

_pmf_ 9y ago

> I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. This conflicts with the feminine imperative.

jakobegger 9y ago

It would probably be sufficient if people who make false testimony would be fired and not allowed to work for law enforcement for a few years.

untog 9y ago

> I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is facing. Theoretically a sound idea, but people misremember things. It is possible to give false testimony without actively lying, and difficult to prove conclusively whether someone is actively deceiving or misremembering.

ryanlol 9y ago
This seems like exactly the sort of a thing that the courts deal with on a daily basis.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
This is why body cams should be mandatory, also for the police officer's benefits - videos can't "misremember". Also police officers should be held to higher standards than the general population when it comes to giving testimony.
3pt14159 9y ago
100% true. It's why Canadian judges generally don't convict on testimony unless there were dozens of witnesses and little chance of mistaken identity (the person stayed at the scene the entire time, etc).