5 ms·

I don't buy this for a second. "If you think I did it" is clearly a preliminary clause akin to "If that's the way it's going to be," not the beginning of an i

I don't buy this for a second. "If you think I did it" is clearly a preliminary clause akin to "If that's the way it's going to be," not the beginning of an if-then clause. But the point here is that there shouldn't be such a test in the first place. "If y'all think I did it" was him (belatedly) realizing that he was a suspect, after the police put on a kabuki-show of pretending that he wasn't, which they are trained to do, specifically to get suspects to talk without asking for a lawyer. The whole thing is a farce. "It's okay to screw him because technically he didn't quite do the thing that we intentionally put in place to let us screw people more" is the sort of claim that's wrong even when it's right, because it's so very far removed from a genuine attempt to discover the truth of the matter.

wisty 5y ago
The police "screwed" him by following the exact letter of the law as they questioned him, and didn't give him the "get out of jail free" card that he almost managed to get. And while it's not totally relevant, he was hardly just some kid with a joint on the floor of his car (it was a serious violent offense). Yes, the police sailed a bit close to the wind. But maybe the law is currently too suspect-friendly in the USA (which then is compensated with extreme penalties for the tiny number of suspects who are found guilty in a trial). The US system is such a mess that the police and suspects basically conspire to avoid it (plea bargaining). And while it's easy to just blame the "law and order" crowd, they're partly just reacting to the fact that it's almost impossible to fairly convict a savvy criminal in the US without physical evidence or multiple witnesses. In most of the world, police interrogations aren't optional (if you know the cheat codes). I believe that in the UK, Canada, Australia you have the right to remain silent, but police or prosecutor can tell the jury which questions you did not answer (and then the lawyers will argue over why that was the case). The right to council is often for the trial, not telling you how to avoid answering questions during a police interview. If the purpose of legal systems is to "discover the truth of the matter", then I think the US does a poor job (making it far too easy for a smart criminal to simply shut down a case against them), and a lot of the disfunction they have seems to be an attempt to compensate for all the rights that a smarter criminal can have.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I believe that in the UK, Canada, Australia you have the right to remain silent, but police or prosecutor can tell the jury which questions you did not answer (and then the lawyers will argue over why that was the case). Your summary does not seem to be correct. The police/prosecutor can tell the jury that you refused to answer questions, but only in limited circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
  - wisty 5y ago
    Hmm, you might be right. I still think the US system tends to be very heavily driven by the opposing forces of the constitution and the government though, and has a lot of hard rules that don't seem particularly realistic (if a defendant says some magic phrase they fall under the constitution's protection, otherwise they're in trouble - it's a little like something sovereign citizens might dream up). While most countries let governments or the courts strike what they consider to be a balance.
    - ineptech 5y ago
      > if a defendant says some magic phrase they fall under the constitution's protection, otherwise they're in trouble This is not true. Every US citizen is protected by the constitution, all the time, and has the right to a lawyer, no matter what. The "magic" in that phrase is that if you try to exercise your right to a lawyer, and the cops refuse, and in so doing break the law and defy the constitution, saying the magic phrase means that they are more likely to get in trouble for doing so.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > And while it's not totally relevant, he was hardly just some kid It's absolutely not relevant. Everyone has rights. This "people who seem guilty should have a harder time in the legal system" take your comment is leaning into is a self sabotaging approach to justice, I hope for obvious reasons.

wisty 5y ago

The police "screwed" him by following the exact letter of the law as they questioned him, and didn't give him the "get out of jail free" card that he almost managed to get. And while it's not totally relevant, he was hardly just some kid with a joint on the floor of his car (it was a serious violent offense). Yes, the police sailed a bit close to the wind. But maybe the law is currently too suspect-friendly in the USA (which then is compensated with extreme penalties for the tiny number of suspects who are found guilty in a trial). The US system is such a mess that the police and suspects basically conspire to avoid it (plea bargaining). And while it's easy to just blame the "law and order" crowd, they're partly just reacting to the fact that it's almost impossible to fairly convict a savvy criminal in the US without physical evidence or multiple witnesses. In most of the world, police interrogations aren't optional (if you know the cheat codes). I believe that in the UK, Canada, Australia you have the right to remain silent, but police or prosecutor can tell the jury which questions you did not answer (and then the lawyers will argue over why that was the case). The right to council is often for the trial, not telling you how to avoid answering questions during a police interview. If the purpose of legal systems is to "discover the truth of the matter", then I think the US does a poor job (making it far too easy for a smart criminal to simply shut down a case against them), and a lot of the disfunction they have seems to be an attempt to compensate for all the rights that a smarter criminal can have.

gruez 5y ago
>I believe that in the UK, Canada, Australia you have the right to remain silent, but police or prosecutor can tell the jury which questions you did not answer (and then the lawyers will argue over why that was the case). Your summary does not seem to be correct. The police/prosecutor can tell the jury that you refused to answer questions, but only in limited circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
- wisty 5y ago
  Hmm, you might be right. I still think the US system tends to be very heavily driven by the opposing forces of the constitution and the government though, and has a lot of hard rules that don't seem particularly realistic (if a defendant says some magic phrase they fall under the constitution's protection, otherwise they're in trouble - it's a little like something sovereign citizens might dream up). While most countries let governments or the courts strike what they consider to be a balance.
  - ineptech 5y ago
    > if a defendant says some magic phrase they fall under the constitution's protection, otherwise they're in trouble This is not true. Every US citizen is protected by the constitution, all the time, and has the right to a lawyer, no matter what. The "magic" in that phrase is that if you try to exercise your right to a lawyer, and the cops refuse, and in so doing break the law and defy the constitution, saying the magic phrase means that they are more likely to get in trouble for doing so.
magicalist 5y ago
> And while it's not totally relevant, he was hardly just some kid It's absolutely not relevant. Everyone has rights. This "people who seem guilty should have a harder time in the legal system" take your comment is leaning into is a self sabotaging approach to justice, I hope for obvious reasons.