4 ms·

Always funny watching the UK - where it was described that perverting the course of justice is an instrument of public policy - criticizing other countries lega

by tus88 7y ago

Always funny watching the UK - where it was described that perverting the course of justice is an instrument of public policy - criticizing other countries legal systems. And bear in mind the UKs 80% (?) conviction rate occurs with a DPP that likes to "engage with risk". Whatever that means.

mellosouls 7y ago
This is an extremely good programme that deserves more credit than sensitivity of that sort. It's whole point is to delve neutrally into the numbers put out by different organisations to evaluate and explain the claims. Given that scrutiny of UK organisations is the norm for it, and that a 99% conviction rate is a headline figure that would more normally be associated with somewhere like North Korea and which begs explanation, it's difficult to see what the problem is here?
- tus88 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure scrutiny of the UK system is down to about the Daily Mail and not much else. The BBC is more likely to criticize such scrutiny than engage in it itself. And you make a lot of assumptions. 99% could mean a terrible system, or one where only solid cases are pursued. 80% could mean a robust trial system, or lots of shoddy cases pursued by a risk taking, politicized prosecution system.
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    If the 99% figure has merit, that is what the programme is intended to uncover. Your point about the Daily Mail is lost on me - perhaps you could point to an alternative podcast on statistics that does a less biased job, so I can see the same nationalist perspective as you are seeing, and understand the value of your objection?
    - tus88 7y ago
      And as I said, it's always funny watching the UK scrutinize other countries legal systems while internal scrutiny is limited to news outlets that aren't so tightly connected to the state (or literally is state propaganda like the BBC). But boy, when such scrutiny does occur the atrocities it uncovers leaves people scratching their heads at the supposed "envy of the world".
      - mellosouls 7y ago
        And as I said - and as you'd know if you ever listened to the programme, it's focus is neutral, and normally directed on British organisations. Your argument seems more based on a personal dislike of the BBC than an actual understanding of what this programme actually does.
        tus88 7y ago
        And as I said, it's always funny watching the UK scrutinize...oh why bother, if it hasn't registered yet it probably never will.
      - barneygale 7y ago
        Could you please provide some evidence that the More or Less programme is state propaganda? AFAIK the presenter[1] is quite reputable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Harford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Harford
        tus88 7y ago
        1. The BBC is state owned. 2. It's notorious for left wing ideological extremism, including inciting battery acid attacks on conservative politicians (really!). I guess that covers it.
        DanBC 7y ago
        You're using an incomplete, out context quote from a comedy programme that has the aim of seeing how far people can push the boundaries of free speech to make a comment about a completely different programme?
    - GordonS 7y ago
      If you're not from the UK, you won't have heard of the Daily Mail - it's a tabloid rag, known for spewing hate, xenophobia (often borderline racism), and outrage, pandering to people's insecurities and using them to whip them up into a frenzy. I find it to be a destructive force in the UK. I find the notion that it has resulted in anything positive at all in the UK, to be quite ludicrous.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > 99% could mean a terrible system, or one where only solid cases are pursued A system that only pursues "solid" cases is a terrible system because it leaves many people without justice.
- Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
  I'm an American ex-prosecutor. Our conviction rate is similar -- many places are like this. Note that the 99% figure includes guilty pleas. If this statistic were about "99% of criminal trials end in victory for the prosecutor," now THAT would be something I'd expect to see linked to North Korea. But the extreme vast majority of crim cases never reach trial. Both here in the States and in Japan, as well as elsewhere, a lot of the reason for the high conviction rate is understaffing. It's a combination of (a) not enough time and money to bring all cases to trial, and (b) only bringing the obviously guilty cases all the way to trial. Guilty pleas are everything. (I'm not saying that's a good thing, because it isn't, but it's the reality.) Approximately 97% of federal felony convictions result from pleas. As a prosecutor, I felt far far more like a negotiator than a litigator. In one year, I handled approximately 700 cases and had only 2 trials. (Not all of the rest were convictions; many were moved to alternative resolutions (i.e., drug treatment programs), and a few were dismissed.) 700 cases in one year is an unethical number of cases, but what could anyone do? We were only paid ~$40,000 per year (on top of massive loan debt) and they still couldn't afford to hire more. Public defenders were similarly overworked. Hence the pleas, and the high conviction rates.
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    Those are all very good points, and exactly the sort of useful analysis that this programme normally provides.
yodsanklai 7y ago
Same here in France. Everyone was shocked about the cruel treatment of Japanese inmates (more specifically Carlos Ghosn), but the media never mentioned the notoriously bad state of French prison. An objective comparison would have been interesting.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > the media never mentioned the notoriously bad state of French prison The do mention it all the time.
- himinlomax 7y ago
  The terrible state of French prisons is well known, even though it's not a frequent topic of discussion. The terrible state for the rights of the accused is less well known, IMO. It's improved significantly over the past few decades thanks to numerous damning ECHR decisions, but very slowly and is still problematic. At least the accused now have access to a lawyer early in the process; this was not even common just 20 years ago despite it being a rather clear requirements to comply with a number of human rights supposedly enshrined in the constitution. Having said that, said rights are less of an issue than in the US simply because we don't jail as many people, by far. It's shocking how easy it is to end up in jail for the average person in the US. Just failing to pay a ticket you didn't even know you ever got because it was ripped off from your car and the court summons was served to the wrong person can land you in jail in the US, but that doesn't happen in France.
DanBC 7y ago
> where it was described that perverting the course of justice is an instrument of public policy Do you have a reliable cite for this please?
inopinatus 7y ago
The BBC is not the UK.

by tus88 7y ago

mellosouls 7y ago

This is an extremely good programme that deserves more credit than sensitivity of that sort. It's whole point is to delve neutrally into the numbers put out by different organisations to evaluate and explain the claims. Given that scrutiny of UK organisations is the norm for it, and that a 99% conviction rate is a headline figure that would more normally be associated with somewhere like North Korea and which begs explanation, it's difficult to see what the problem is here?

tus88 7y ago
I'm pretty sure scrutiny of the UK system is down to about the Daily Mail and not much else. The BBC is more likely to criticize such scrutiny than engage in it itself. And you make a lot of assumptions. 99% could mean a terrible system, or one where only solid cases are pursued. 80% could mean a robust trial system, or lots of shoddy cases pursued by a risk taking, politicized prosecution system.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  If the 99% figure has merit, that is what the programme is intended to uncover. Your point about the Daily Mail is lost on me - perhaps you could point to an alternative podcast on statistics that does a less biased job, so I can see the same nationalist perspective as you are seeing, and understand the value of your objection?
  - tus88 7y ago
    And as I said, it's always funny watching the UK scrutinize other countries legal systems while internal scrutiny is limited to news outlets that aren't so tightly connected to the state (or literally is state propaganda like the BBC). But boy, when such scrutiny does occur the atrocities it uncovers leaves people scratching their heads at the supposed "envy of the world".
    - mellosouls 7y ago
      And as I said - and as you'd know if you ever listened to the programme, it's focus is neutral, and normally directed on British organisations. Your argument seems more based on a personal dislike of the BBC than an actual understanding of what this programme actually does.
      - tus88 7y ago
        And as I said, it's always funny watching the UK scrutinize...oh why bother, if it hasn't registered yet it probably never will.
    - barneygale 7y ago
      Could you please provide some evidence that the More or Less programme is state propaganda? AFAIK the presenter[1] is quite reputable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Harford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Harford
      - tus88 7y ago
        1. The BBC is state owned. 2. It's notorious for left wing ideological extremism, including inciting battery acid attacks on conservative politicians (really!). I guess that covers it.
        DanBC 7y ago
        You're using an incomplete, out context quote from a comedy programme that has the aim of seeing how far people can push the boundaries of free speech to make a comment about a completely different programme?
  - GordonS 7y ago
    If you're not from the UK, you won't have heard of the Daily Mail - it's a tabloid rag, known for spewing hate, xenophobia (often borderline racism), and outrage, pandering to people's insecurities and using them to whip them up into a frenzy. I find it to be a destructive force in the UK. I find the notion that it has resulted in anything positive at all in the UK, to be quite ludicrous.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > 99% could mean a terrible system, or one where only solid cases are pursued A system that only pursues "solid" cases is a terrible system because it leaves many people without justice.
Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
I'm an American ex-prosecutor. Our conviction rate is similar -- many places are like this. Note that the 99% figure includes guilty pleas. If this statistic were about "99% of criminal trials end in victory for the prosecutor," now THAT would be something I'd expect to see linked to North Korea. But the extreme vast majority of crim cases never reach trial. Both here in the States and in Japan, as well as elsewhere, a lot of the reason for the high conviction rate is understaffing. It's a combination of (a) not enough time and money to bring all cases to trial, and (b) only bringing the obviously guilty cases all the way to trial. Guilty pleas are everything. (I'm not saying that's a good thing, because it isn't, but it's the reality.) Approximately 97% of federal felony convictions result from pleas. As a prosecutor, I felt far far more like a negotiator than a litigator. In one year, I handled approximately 700 cases and had only 2 trials. (Not all of the rest were convictions; many were moved to alternative resolutions (i.e., drug treatment programs), and a few were dismissed.) 700 cases in one year is an unethical number of cases, but what could anyone do? We were only paid ~$40,000 per year (on top of massive loan debt) and they still couldn't afford to hire more. Public defenders were similarly overworked. Hence the pleas, and the high conviction rates.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  Those are all very good points, and exactly the sort of useful analysis that this programme normally provides.

yodsanklai 7y ago

Same here in France. Everyone was shocked about the cruel treatment of Japanese inmates (more specifically Carlos Ghosn), but the media never mentioned the notoriously bad state of French prison. An objective comparison would have been interesting.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
> the media never mentioned the notoriously bad state of French prison The do mention it all the time.
himinlomax 7y ago
The terrible state of French prisons is well known, even though it's not a frequent topic of discussion. The terrible state for the rights of the accused is less well known, IMO. It's improved significantly over the past few decades thanks to numerous damning ECHR decisions, but very slowly and is still problematic. At least the accused now have access to a lawyer early in the process; this was not even common just 20 years ago despite it being a rather clear requirements to comply with a number of human rights supposedly enshrined in the constitution. Having said that, said rights are less of an issue than in the US simply because we don't jail as many people, by far. It's shocking how easy it is to end up in jail for the average person in the US. Just failing to pay a ticket you didn't even know you ever got because it was ripped off from your car and the court summons was served to the wrong person can land you in jail in the US, but that doesn't happen in France.

DanBC 7y ago

> where it was described that perverting the course of justice is an instrument of public policy Do you have a reliable cite for this please?

inopinatus 7y ago

The BBC is not the UK.