3 ms·

The US has uniquely good protections against abuse by government officials. Things like the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, explicitly designed to keep pr

The US has uniquely good protections against abuse by government officials. Things like the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, explicitly designed to keep prosecutors from overstepping their boundaries, simply don't exist in most of the world. Admissibility is complex and important in the US and basically not a concern outside the US at all, virtually everything is admissible in court. For example, it has been established at the highest level of jurisprudence in the EU that you can torture suspects and you can prosecute them with evidence acquired through their forced confession. That's because at a fundamental level, the prosecutors/court determining the truth far outweighs the right to a fair trial in most of the world. The idea outside the US being that you'll just prosecute investigators and prosecutors who overstep legal boundaries.

watwut 4y ago
Does it really, in practice? Looking at the two systems, I would genuinely trust the US system less. Also, you are wrong about admissibility. It is not true that everything is allowed, it depends on context. Also, what happens even when the thing is admitted is that police can be punished for breaking rules. Not by changing result of the court, but by punishing the police. And that is super big one. Plus, most case in US are not even going through court. 96% or so are done by guilty plea. Going through court is super expensive and you risk much higher punishment. US courts are notoriously deferential to cops and prodecutors. It just does not strikes me a system to trust all that much.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> has been established at the highest level of jurisprudence in the EU that you can torture suspects and you can prosecute them with evidence acquired through their forced confession. This sounds like complete tosh - what is the highest level of. EU, ECHR? I dont believe they ever made such a ruling Additionally, there was no EU equivalent to Guantanamo Bay level of toture and extrajudicial kidnapping.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  I was thinking about ECHR application number 22978/05, but the case turns out to be significantly more subtle. The ECHR ruled the opposite of what I claimed in principle - so evidence gathered through a forced confession is generally inadmissible as an exceptional rule, however, in the specific case the admission of the evidence wasn't seen as rendering the trial unfair, specifically because he confessed in the trial and the admitted evidence was then used to confirm the confession. The ECHR argues the confession-at-trial "broke" the otherwise straight chain of forced confession => evidence => conviction, even though that confession was arguably predicated on the inadmissible (per ECHR) evidence admitted by the original criminal court. 6/17 judges dissented with this part of the ruling. I suspect the ECHR tried to do two things at once here: 1. establish a rule that torturing people does result in all resulting evidence to be excluded from trial, and if that leaves authorities with no evidence, then there can be no trial. Reading the ruling it clearly ECHR considers the "just prosecute the prosecutors" approach insufficient when article 3 (torture) is concerned - you can't have a trial based on torture and call it fair, basically. 2. not letting Gaefgen get off because there is no doubt at all that he murdered the child. doi 10.1017/S2071832200020290 is of interest for this. > Additionally, there was no EU equivalent to Guantanamo Bay level of toture and extrajudicial kidnapping. Why do you think Gitmo is in Cuba and not actual US territory?
mellavora 4y ago
> The US has uniquely good protections against abuse by government officials. I hear even civil forfeiture is in decline. Though too many cases still end by plea bargain. Which has interesting parallels to torture https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... from 1978. With others arguing that plea bargain is coerced confession, and some legal scholars even thinking thoughtful torture would be better https://www.econlib.org/how-thoughtful-torture-beats-plea-bargaining/ https://www.econlib.org/how-thoughtful-torture-beats-plea-ba... I love the US, and part of that love is to help it see its weaknesses and injustices so we can fix them.

watwut 4y ago

Does it really, in practice? Looking at the two systems, I would genuinely trust the US system less. Also, you are wrong about admissibility. It is not true that everything is allowed, it depends on context. Also, what happens even when the thing is admitted is that police can be punished for breaking rules. Not by changing result of the court, but by punishing the police. And that is super big one. Plus, most case in US are not even going through court. 96% or so are done by guilty plea. Going through court is super expensive and you risk much higher punishment. US courts are notoriously deferential to cops and prodecutors. It just does not strikes me a system to trust all that much.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> has been established at the highest level of jurisprudence in the EU that you can torture suspects and you can prosecute them with evidence acquired through their forced confession. This sounds like complete tosh - what is the highest level of. EU, ECHR? I dont believe they ever made such a ruling Additionally, there was no EU equivalent to Guantanamo Bay level of toture and extrajudicial kidnapping.

formerly_proven 4y ago
I was thinking about ECHR application number 22978/05, but the case turns out to be significantly more subtle. The ECHR ruled the opposite of what I claimed in principle - so evidence gathered through a forced confession is generally inadmissible as an exceptional rule, however, in the specific case the admission of the evidence wasn't seen as rendering the trial unfair, specifically because he confessed in the trial and the admitted evidence was then used to confirm the confession. The ECHR argues the confession-at-trial "broke" the otherwise straight chain of forced confession => evidence => conviction, even though that confession was arguably predicated on the inadmissible (per ECHR) evidence admitted by the original criminal court. 6/17 judges dissented with this part of the ruling. I suspect the ECHR tried to do two things at once here: 1. establish a rule that torturing people does result in all resulting evidence to be excluded from trial, and if that leaves authorities with no evidence, then there can be no trial. Reading the ruling it clearly ECHR considers the "just prosecute the prosecutors" approach insufficient when article 3 (torture) is concerned - you can't have a trial based on torture and call it fair, basically. 2. not letting Gaefgen get off because there is no doubt at all that he murdered the child. doi 10.1017/S2071832200020290 is of interest for this. > Additionally, there was no EU equivalent to Guantanamo Bay level of toture and extrajudicial kidnapping. Why do you think Gitmo is in Cuba and not actual US territory?

mellavora 4y ago

> The US has uniquely good protections against abuse by government officials. I hear even civil forfeiture is in decline. Though too many cases still end by plea bargain. Which has interesting parallels to torture https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... from 1978. With others arguing that plea bargain is coerced confession, and some legal scholars even thinking thoughtful torture would be better https://www.econlib.org/how-thoughtful-torture-beats-plea-bargaining/ https://www.econlib.org/how-thoughtful-torture-beats-plea-ba... I love the US, and part of that love is to help it see its weaknesses and injustices so we can fix them.