8 ms·

> Plenty of people in law enforcement would wipe a drive if their family and debts were taken care of, even in face of prison. This is beyond ridiculous: (1)

> Plenty of people in law enforcement would wipe a drive if their family and debts were taken care of, even in face of prison. This is beyond ridiculous: (1) Someone in law enforcement that is in a position to meddle with the chain of evidence can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card. (2) There are a myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place, and ending with who prosecutors decline to prosecute. (3) Anyone in law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is, especially for someone previously in law-enforcement. Nobody is scrambling to wipe their debts to “take care of their family” while going to prison themselves.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. Then the guy who wiped the drive was caught and charged. So no. OP suggested the defendant be “automatically found not guilty.” Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration. > myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place Nothing automatic. Also, this is why we have overlapping jurisdiction. > law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons.
- typeofhuman 4y ago
  > LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons In the US they do. Look at Derek Chauvin. He got assaulted on day one.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    I couldn't find a news article stating this. I'm skeptical that a highly politicized and infamous former policeman would not be immediately shipped to PC at any prison he went to -- he or his lawyers would probably request it outright.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    do you have a source? (not because I don't believe you, but rather I'm fascinated and want to learn more but not finding anything with google)
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. So no. This senator was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist. > OP suggested automatic not guilty for the defendant. Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration. What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence? Force the accused to prove the wiped evidence was exculpatory?
  - strbean 4y ago
    You handle it in appeals, and the appeals court looks at the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence and makes a decision?
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      Unfortunately in most cases the defendant is far too poor to afford to hire an attorney for an appeal. Justice very often relies on the contents of your bank account
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > in most cases In this case they’re an elected official who siphoned six figures out of state funds.
        wonderwonder 4y ago
        I mean, they are an elected official convicted of doing so in the absence of exculpatory evidence that was deleted by an fbi agent.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence Surely you see the fundamental problem, here. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Demonstrating the previous existence and, in particular, the exculpatory nature of destroyed evidence is practically impossible. If the state directly conspires to an unfair trial, the state’s case must be forfeit.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration. What fruit do you discard after somebody destroys the data that tells what tree was poisoned?
hk1337 4y ago
With the right amount of incentive, they could hire a lawyer to get them house arrest instead of prison time or a reduced prison time in a minimum security luxury prison.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
True. Tho' I believe the arc of the point is...a system based on humans and human nature is subject to a wide range of questionable behaviours. Just recently there was a judge - was it judges? - found guilty of sending kids to prison based on kickbacks received from the prison. And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg. Human behavior is both predictable and yet often bizarre.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg. But is it just the tip of the iceberg? Or are these things highly publicized when they happen because they are rare?
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Humans - you and me included - are far from perfect. A title or position does little to alter that. In fact, title and status breeds overconfidence and additional biases. I'm not a cynical, simply realistic. We don't know about a fraction of the shit that goes down.
rebuilder 4y ago
We don’t know what was on the drive, since it was wiped. We just know the agent says they had it wiped. Creating a situation where bribing a law enforcement officer to claim to have destroyed evidence gets you out of a criminal charge automatically seems like a pretty problematic idea.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. Then the guy who wiped the drive was caught and charged. So no. OP suggested the defendant be “automatically found not guilty.” Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration. > myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place Nothing automatic. Also, this is why we have overlapping jurisdiction. > law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons.

typeofhuman 4y ago
> LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons In the US they do. Look at Derek Chauvin. He got assaulted on day one.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  I couldn't find a news article stating this. I'm skeptical that a highly politicized and infamous former policeman would not be immediately shipped to PC at any prison he went to -- he or his lawyers would probably request it outright.
- freedomben 4y ago
  do you have a source? (not because I don't believe you, but rather I'm fascinated and want to learn more but not finding anything with google)
teakettle42 4y ago
> We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. So no. This senator was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist. > OP suggested automatic not guilty for the defendant. Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration. What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence? Force the accused to prove the wiped evidence was exculpatory?
- strbean 4y ago
  You handle it in appeals, and the appeals court looks at the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence and makes a decision?
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    Unfortunately in most cases the defendant is far too poor to afford to hire an attorney for an appeal. Justice very often relies on the contents of your bank account
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > in most cases In this case they’re an elected official who siphoned six figures out of state funds.
      - wonderwonder 4y ago
        I mean, they are an elected official convicted of doing so in the absence of exculpatory evidence that was deleted by an fbi agent.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence Surely you see the fundamental problem, here. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Demonstrating the previous existence and, in particular, the exculpatory nature of destroyed evidence is practically impossible. If the state directly conspires to an unfair trial, the state’s case must be forfeit.
marcosdumay 4y ago
> Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration. What fruit do you discard after somebody destroys the data that tells what tree was poisoned?

hk1337 4y ago

With the right amount of incentive, they could hire a lawyer to get them house arrest instead of prison time or a reduced prison time in a minimum security luxury prison.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

True. Tho' I believe the arc of the point is...a system based on humans and human nature is subject to a wide range of questionable behaviours. Just recently there was a judge - was it judges? - found guilty of sending kids to prison based on kickbacks received from the prison. And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg. Human behavior is both predictable and yet often bizarre.

rayiner 4y ago
> And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg. But is it just the tip of the iceberg? Or are these things highly publicized when they happen because they are rare?
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Humans - you and me included - are far from perfect. A title or position does little to alter that. In fact, title and status breeds overconfidence and additional biases. I'm not a cynical, simply realistic. We don't know about a fraction of the shit that goes down.

rebuilder 4y ago

We don’t know what was on the drive, since it was wiped. We just know the agent says they had it wiped. Creating a situation where bribing a law enforcement officer to claim to have destroyed evidence gets you out of a criminal charge automatically seems like a pretty problematic idea.