3 ms·

You don’t just decide to lock someone up for a crime. Police gather evidence, give it to a prosecutor, the prosecutor makes a case (or not) and they will either

by graphe 3y ago

You don’t just decide to lock someone up for a crime. Police gather evidence, give it to a prosecutor, the prosecutor makes a case (or not) and they will either go to trial or plea, then it’s in the hands of a jury or judge. Claiming guilt to plea down to avoid a case is a problem, but that isn’t the case you’re making. There’s nothing magical about criminal prosecution.

klyrs 3y ago
> If you’re looking for the criminal that killed a bunch of people but not that specific case it’s not that uncommon. Here you're saying that mass-murderers are common, but despite their extensive trails of corpses, we can't pin the actual crime on an actual criminal. No, there's nothing magical about criminal prosecution here, it's no more than bullshit as you've described it. Back to my question, why do you think mass-murderers are so incredibly overrepresented in the American population?
- graphe 3y ago
  Blame laws like fruit of the poisoned tree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree If you want to act in bad faith and call it magic and bullshit feel free to grandstand.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    What is wrong with the poisonous tree doctrine in your opinion? I find it isn't used widely enough against police and prosecutor misconduct. There are too many ways out of it for them.
    - graphe 3y ago
      It’s in response to: >Here you're saying that mass-murderers are common, but despite their extensive trails of corpses, we can't pin the actual crime on an actual criminal. No, there's nothing magical about criminal prosecution here, it's no more than bullshit as you've described it. Everyone does illegal stuff in the US. Sometimes it’s a technicality that a guilty party goes free.
      - qingcharles 3y ago
        It's true that technicalities in the USA can lead to very guilty defendants walking free from very serious crimes. These doctrines were created by judges who were sick of prosecutors and police violating the constitution and not getting punished for it. The solution is to fix the system to stop this misconduct and then we could rid ourselves of this doctrine. It's a fucked up system.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      My main problem is that the person that suffers from the poisonous tree is the public at large. The actual criminal in this scenario (the police officer) gets off carte blanche for breaking the law. Additionally, if they managed to find evidence then an additional criminal (the defendants) also gets carte blanche. The only people punished is the public that now have two known criminals that evaded justice!
      - qingcharles 3y ago
        I absolutely agree. The problem with the doctrine is that it should not exist. The misconduct should be punished. The doctrine only exists because there is no punishment for the police or prosecutors.
      - UncleMeat 3y ago
        The limitations of section 1983 to let you sue cops for violating your rights are not the fault of the exclusionary rule. Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. Yes, some people who committed crimes go unpunished because the state fucked up and couldn't manage to protect their legal rights while investigating and arresting them. We should place a high burden on the state to dramatically disincentivize it from violating our rights, even the rights of people who commit crimes.
        lesuorac 3y ago
        > Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. I mean if I trespass on your property and take a handgun and give it to police as evidence of the murder weapon they can use that to convict you. You might have trouble with a civil suit of trespassing against me but I doubt a prosector couldn't also try me for trespassing. The exclusionary rule is not in the constitution. The 4th amendment does not describe what happens if its violated and the fruit of the poisonous tree is entirely made up by the court system in 1920 [1] over a century after the constitution was written. Prior to that point there wasn't a need of the fruit of the poisonous tree because if even if you had a warrant you couldn't use my personal possessions as evidence against me [2]. Although I don't really agree with either system. You should be able to use warrants to get personal property but taking person property without a warrant should receive the same penalty no matter who takes it. i.e. Cops should risk jail time for breaking the law like everybody else. Obviously if a cop radios their supervisor to verify they have a warrant and the supervisor lies then the supervisor is on the hook and not the cop. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._Uni... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule

by graphe 3y ago

klyrs 3y ago

> If you’re looking for the criminal that killed a bunch of people but not that specific case it’s not that uncommon. Here you're saying that mass-murderers are common, but despite their extensive trails of corpses, we can't pin the actual crime on an actual criminal. No, there's nothing magical about criminal prosecution here, it's no more than bullshit as you've described it. Back to my question, why do you think mass-murderers are so incredibly overrepresented in the American population?

graphe 3y ago
Blame laws like fruit of the poisoned tree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree If you want to act in bad faith and call it magic and bullshit feel free to grandstand.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  What is wrong with the poisonous tree doctrine in your opinion? I find it isn't used widely enough against police and prosecutor misconduct. There are too many ways out of it for them.
  - graphe 3y ago
    It’s in response to: >Here you're saying that mass-murderers are common, but despite their extensive trails of corpses, we can't pin the actual crime on an actual criminal. No, there's nothing magical about criminal prosecution here, it's no more than bullshit as you've described it. Everyone does illegal stuff in the US. Sometimes it’s a technicality that a guilty party goes free.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      It's true that technicalities in the USA can lead to very guilty defendants walking free from very serious crimes. These doctrines were created by judges who were sick of prosecutors and police violating the constitution and not getting punished for it. The solution is to fix the system to stop this misconduct and then we could rid ourselves of this doctrine. It's a fucked up system.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    My main problem is that the person that suffers from the poisonous tree is the public at large. The actual criminal in this scenario (the police officer) gets off carte blanche for breaking the law. Additionally, if they managed to find evidence then an additional criminal (the defendants) also gets carte blanche. The only people punished is the public that now have two known criminals that evaded justice!
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      I absolutely agree. The problem with the doctrine is that it should not exist. The misconduct should be punished. The doctrine only exists because there is no punishment for the police or prosecutors.
    - UncleMeat 3y ago
      The limitations of section 1983 to let you sue cops for violating your rights are not the fault of the exclusionary rule. Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. Yes, some people who committed crimes go unpunished because the state fucked up and couldn't manage to protect their legal rights while investigating and arresting them. We should place a high burden on the state to dramatically disincentivize it from violating our rights, even the rights of people who commit crimes.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        > Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. I mean if I trespass on your property and take a handgun and give it to police as evidence of the murder weapon they can use that to convict you. You might have trouble with a civil suit of trespassing against me but I doubt a prosector couldn't also try me for trespassing. The exclusionary rule is not in the constitution. The 4th amendment does not describe what happens if its violated and the fruit of the poisonous tree is entirely made up by the court system in 1920 [1] over a century after the constitution was written. Prior to that point there wasn't a need of the fruit of the poisonous tree because if even if you had a warrant you couldn't use my personal possessions as evidence against me [2]. Although I don't really agree with either system. You should be able to use warrants to get personal property but taking person property without a warrant should receive the same penalty no matter who takes it. i.e. Cops should risk jail time for breaking the law like everybody else. Obviously if a cop radios their supervisor to verify they have a warrant and the supervisor lies then the supervisor is on the hook and not the cop. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._Uni... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule