4 ms·

Why is it unfortunate? Is it unfortunate that some people will get away with crimes, because they know to ask for a lawyer (unambiguously)? The "lawyer dog" su

by wisty 5y ago

Why is it unfortunate? Is it unfortunate that some people will get away with crimes, because they know to ask for a lawyer (unambiguously)? The "lawyer dog" suspect was found guilty of a serious crime (based on his interview with police), and I think he should have been convicted, and that it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality (at least in this specific case). Or is it unfortunate that some people will be wrongfully convicted, because they didn't have a lawyer and said something which ended up making them (falsely) look guilty? I suspect people will think it's a combination of the two - both false convictions exist, and some criminals get off because they know the system. But making it easier to get a lawyer will only fix one of these. There has to be some balance. If the police can only convict based on physical evidence (and not suspect interviews) then a lot of crimes will be impossible to prosecute.

Spivak 5y ago
> and that it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality This phrasing is like identity theft, it puts the burden on the wrong party. Had he not been convicted, it would be because the state failed to successfully prosecute him by not giving him a fair trial. A system where evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court creates a perverse incentive for police to collect evidence illegally and suffer the suffer the consequences of that in order to get a conviction. You have to take away the value to eliminate the incentive. Imagine a world where where theft was punishable by 2 years in jail but you got to keep whatever money you stole.
Beltalowda 5y ago
> it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality (at least in this specific case). Assuming it was good in this case, and that the confession wasn't forced or some such, it's definitely not good in "big picture" terms. Making evidence acquired outside of what is laws inadmissible keeps law enforcement honest since there will be nothing to gain by breaking the rules, and it ensures that evidence is not tampered with and that people's rights are protected. Yes, these things sometimes let guilty people go free, but that's better than locking up innocent people. It sucks, but that's the reality of it.
ineedasername 5y ago
Unfortunate because people are innocent until proven guilty, so we cannot (US, constitutionally) and should not be making determinations about how easy it should be to assert a constitutional right to legal counsel. Constitutional rights should be very easy to exercise and very difficult to limit. And in these scenarios, regarding the possibility that criminals might find an easier time getting legal help, you must consider part of the founding philosophy of the US legal system, a portion borrowed from England's William Blackstone: it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer. Or, as codified by precedent from the US Supreme Court some time later in 1895, "it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent". To make it harder to get a lawyer because the person might be guilty... or having police or prosecutors make their own individual determinations on that difficulty based on their own subjective belief in the suspect's probability of guilt... Those are antithetical to the principals that founded the US legal system, and antithetical to the rule of law superceding the rule of men. So there does not need to be a balance, at least not beyond the constitution and corresponding precedent-based legal doctrine. The entire point is that it should be very difficult to strip away a person's freedom. The job of police is not supposed to be easy. If a suspect that has not been found guilty wants the benefit of legal counsel then they are entitled to it. The job of police should not be made easier at the cost of losing fundamental rights.
Talanes 5y ago
If the rules are arcane and specific, then the system will just reward the most competent criminals at the expense of the unprepared and the falsely accused. Making innocent people's lives harder just to catch the least prepared criminals doesn't sound like much of a trade-off.

by wisty 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

> and that it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality This phrasing is like identity theft, it puts the burden on the wrong party. Had he not been convicted, it would be because the state failed to successfully prosecute him by not giving him a fair trial. A system where evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court creates a perverse incentive for police to collect evidence illegally and suffer the suffer the consequences of that in order to get a conviction. You have to take away the value to eliminate the incentive. Imagine a world where where theft was punishable by 2 years in jail but you got to keep whatever money you stole.

Beltalowda 5y ago

> it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality (at least in this specific case). Assuming it was good in this case, and that the confession wasn't forced or some such, it's definitely not good in "big picture" terms. Making evidence acquired outside of what is laws inadmissible keeps law enforcement honest since there will be nothing to gain by breaking the rules, and it ensures that evidence is not tampered with and that people's rights are protected. Yes, these things sometimes let guilty people go free, but that's better than locking up innocent people. It sucks, but that's the reality of it.

ineedasername 5y ago

Unfortunate because people are innocent until proven guilty, so we cannot (US, constitutionally) and should not be making determinations about how easy it should be to assert a constitutional right to legal counsel. Constitutional rights should be very easy to exercise and very difficult to limit. And in these scenarios, regarding the possibility that criminals might find an easier time getting legal help, you must consider part of the founding philosophy of the US legal system, a portion borrowed from England's William Blackstone: it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer. Or, as codified by precedent from the US Supreme Court some time later in 1895, "it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent". To make it harder to get a lawyer because the person might be guilty... or having police or prosecutors make their own individual determinations on that difficulty based on their own subjective belief in the suspect's probability of guilt... Those are antithetical to the principals that founded the US legal system, and antithetical to the rule of law superceding the rule of men. So there does not need to be a balance, at least not beyond the constitution and corresponding precedent-based legal doctrine. The entire point is that it should be very difficult to strip away a person's freedom. The job of police is not supposed to be easy. If a suspect that has not been found guilty wants the benefit of legal counsel then they are entitled to it. The job of police should not be made easier at the cost of losing fundamental rights.

Talanes 5y ago

If the rules are arcane and specific, then the system will just reward the most competent criminals at the expense of the unprepared and the falsely accused. Making innocent people's lives harder just to catch the least prepared criminals doesn't sound like much of a trade-off.