3 ms·

Miranda should attach immediately upon any interaction with the police. You shouldn't be able to confess until you've had the benefit of legal counsel, regardle

by s_q_b 13y ago

Miranda should attach immediately upon any interaction with the police. You shouldn't be able to confess until you've had the benefit of legal counsel, regardless of whether you assert the right. I recognize that sounds extreme, but I have seen so many force/falsified confessions during police investigations that I believe it has become the norm rather than the exception in many jurisdictions.

mongol 13y ago
Swede here. The problem in this case is not that Bergwall didn't have legal counsel. He had, and a "star" one at that. (Actually, the same lawyer that represents the women that Assange had sex with). The problem is that his lawyer represented his intent rather than his innocence. When Bergwall stated that he did this or that to kill these people, and the lawyer represented this statement in court, there was no one in legal system with the intent to shoot down the claim that Bergwall was the murderer. It was not the prosecution's job; Bergwall himself argued that he was guilty; and his lawyer providing extenuating circumstances - more representing Bergwall's statements in legal language, than doing his utmost in getting him acquitted. After all, Bergwall _wanted_ to take on these murders. They made him special, a target of much attention, and with that he got the drugs that he was after. It was not until a new head physician at the mental hospital were he was treated prevented prescription of the drugs Bergwall craved that he stopped confessing more and more murders. Souce: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Quick-Making-Serial-ebook/dp/B00CD49LKQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375472499&sr=8-1&keywords=hannes+r%C3%A5stam http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Quick-Making-Serial-ebook/dp/B0... This is the book that turned the tide. The author is a journalist that really made a difference for how this all ended.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  Wow, that's a very unusual case. I suppose the lesson is that confessions should always be investigated thoroughly for corroborating evidence. If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Obviously the police don't like to do that, because it negatively affects their ability to close the case. I've been thinking a lot about how many of the problems with abuse by some police and prosecutors, (many are good honorable people), result from optimization on the wrong metrics. Police are measured by clearing cases, and prosecutors by convictions and guilty pleas. Surely there's got to be a better way to score their performance that encourages more just outcomes.
  - mongol 13y ago
    Yes this is very true. Claiming that Bergwall (=Quick) was guilty was a win-win-win-win situation - Bergwall got the drugs and the attention he craved - His lawyer got to represent the worst criminal in modern Swedish history - The doctors that were close to him at the hospital could make themselves names in the academic community in how successful they were in their methods of "retrieving" the hidden memories of Bergwall. - The lead police investigator got attention and recognition - The same with the prosecutor and so on. Few (or none) in the system had incentives to pull in the opposite direction.
  - mongol 13y ago
    > If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Yes! And Bergwall's testimony was often wrong. He guessed for example what was the weapon he must have used. But when he was wrong, he got to "think harder", make another guess, and over time (months or years) he could piece together hints from his interrogators and eventually come up with a somewhat "correct" story vs what secret evidence the police knew. Such as if murderer was using a blunt weapon in the head vs a knife in the abdomen. It is surreal to read about it.

by s_q_b 13y ago

mongol 13y ago

Swede here. The problem in this case is not that Bergwall didn't have legal counsel. He had, and a "star" one at that. (Actually, the same lawyer that represents the women that Assange had sex with). The problem is that his lawyer represented his intent rather than his innocence. When Bergwall stated that he did this or that to kill these people, and the lawyer represented this statement in court, there was no one in legal system with the intent to shoot down the claim that Bergwall was the murderer. It was not the prosecution's job; Bergwall himself argued that he was guilty; and his lawyer providing extenuating circumstances - more representing Bergwall's statements in legal language, than doing his utmost in getting him acquitted. After all, Bergwall _wanted_ to take on these murders. They made him special, a target of much attention, and with that he got the drugs that he was after. It was not until a new head physician at the mental hospital were he was treated prevented prescription of the drugs Bergwall craved that he stopped confessing more and more murders. Souce: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Quick-Making-Serial-ebook/dp/B00CD49LKQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375472499&sr=8-1&keywords=hannes+r%C3%A5stam http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Quick-Making-Serial-ebook/dp/B0... This is the book that turned the tide. The author is a journalist that really made a difference for how this all ended.

s_q_b 13y ago
Wow, that's a very unusual case. I suppose the lesson is that confessions should always be investigated thoroughly for corroborating evidence. If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Obviously the police don't like to do that, because it negatively affects their ability to close the case. I've been thinking a lot about how many of the problems with abuse by some police and prosecutors, (many are good honorable people), result from optimization on the wrong metrics. Police are measured by clearing cases, and prosecutors by convictions and guilty pleas. Surely there's got to be a better way to score their performance that encourages more just outcomes.
- mongol 13y ago
  Yes this is very true. Claiming that Bergwall (=Quick) was guilty was a win-win-win-win situation - Bergwall got the drugs and the attention he craved - His lawyer got to represent the worst criminal in modern Swedish history - The doctors that were close to him at the hospital could make themselves names in the academic community in how successful they were in their methods of "retrieving" the hidden memories of Bergwall. - The lead police investigator got attention and recognition - The same with the prosecutor and so on. Few (or none) in the system had incentives to pull in the opposite direction.
- mongol 13y ago
  > If a person committed a crime, they should be able to give details that only the criminal would know, or point in the direction of physical evidence. Yes! And Bergwall's testimony was often wrong. He guessed for example what was the weapon he must have used. But when he was wrong, he got to "think harder", make another guess, and over time (months or years) he could piece together hints from his interrogators and eventually come up with a somewhat "correct" story vs what secret evidence the police knew. Such as if murderer was using a blunt weapon in the head vs a knife in the abdomen. It is surreal to read about it.