3 ms·

This is the definition of a police state.

hga 13y ago
Not quite, our trial by jury system is far from being corrupted. In a real police state like e.g. Japan the police don't worry too much about how they close a case, for they know whoever they charge will get convicted.
- fetbaffe 13y ago
  Same in the US http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353322/dagger-heart-justice-mark-steyn http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353322/dagger-heart-ju... The defining characteristic of English law is its distribution of power between prosecutor, judge, and jury. This delicate balance has been utterly corrupted in the United States to the point where today at the federal level there is a conviction rate of over 90 percent — which would impress Mubarak and the House of Saud, if not quite, yet, Kim Jong Un. American prosecutors have an unhealthy and disreputable addiction to what I called, at the conclusion of the trial of my old boss Conrad Black six years ago, “countless counts.” In Conrad’s case, he was charged originally with 17 crimes, three of which were dropped by the opening of the trial and another halfway through, leaving 13 for the jury, nine of which they found the defendant not guilty of, bringing it down to four, one of which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional and the remaining three of which they vacated, only to have two of them reinstated by the lower appeals court. In other words, the prosecution lost 88 percent of the case, but the 12 percent they won was enough to destroy Conrad Black’s life. Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice.
  - hga 13y ago
    Well, I was talking more about state courts; at the Federal level they situation is obviously worse. E.g. see my Rodney King comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6682482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6682482 where the state court came to the correct conclusion, and the Feds took no chances the 2nd time around ... but, still, they only managed to convict 2 out of 4 defendants. I believe to say it's "utterly corrupted" goes beyond the observable facts.
    - fetbaffe 13y ago
      That depends on state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate Also, police in the US today looks more of an military unit. And on top of that police in some states makes lots of money on doing seizures.
      - hga 13y ago
        Yeah, and the fact that the paper author had to include a big state with only a 59% conviction rate is telling (Florida). Prosecutors should have high conviction rates, they shouldn't be prosecuting innocents, or at least people they can't easily convince a jury are criminals. That they fail so often in states tells us a lot. I'm also unconvinced the innocent are as frequently convicted in state courts as in Federal. Now, separate from this we could discuss the plea bargain and its abuses, but we've got some strong evidence that a lot of people who refuse them and then go to trial are found not guilty.

hga 13y ago

Not quite, our trial by jury system is far from being corrupted. In a real police state like e.g. Japan the police don't worry too much about how they close a case, for they know whoever they charge will get convicted.

fetbaffe 13y ago
Same in the US http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353322/dagger-heart-justice-mark-steyn http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353322/dagger-heart-ju... The defining characteristic of English law is its distribution of power between prosecutor, judge, and jury. This delicate balance has been utterly corrupted in the United States to the point where today at the federal level there is a conviction rate of over 90 percent — which would impress Mubarak and the House of Saud, if not quite, yet, Kim Jong Un. American prosecutors have an unhealthy and disreputable addiction to what I called, at the conclusion of the trial of my old boss Conrad Black six years ago, “countless counts.” In Conrad’s case, he was charged originally with 17 crimes, three of which were dropped by the opening of the trial and another halfway through, leaving 13 for the jury, nine of which they found the defendant not guilty of, bringing it down to four, one of which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional and the remaining three of which they vacated, only to have two of them reinstated by the lower appeals court. In other words, the prosecution lost 88 percent of the case, but the 12 percent they won was enough to destroy Conrad Black’s life. Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice.
- hga 13y ago
  Well, I was talking more about state courts; at the Federal level they situation is obviously worse. E.g. see my Rodney King comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6682482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6682482 where the state court came to the correct conclusion, and the Feds took no chances the 2nd time around ... but, still, they only managed to convict 2 out of 4 defendants. I believe to say it's "utterly corrupted" goes beyond the observable facts.
  - fetbaffe 13y ago
    That depends on state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate Also, police in the US today looks more of an military unit. And on top of that police in some states makes lots of money on doing seizures.
    - hga 13y ago
      Yeah, and the fact that the paper author had to include a big state with only a 59% conviction rate is telling (Florida). Prosecutors should have high conviction rates, they shouldn't be prosecuting innocents, or at least people they can't easily convince a jury are criminals. That they fail so often in states tells us a lot. I'm also unconvinced the innocent are as frequently convicted in state courts as in Federal. Now, separate from this we could discuss the plea bargain and its abuses, but we've got some strong evidence that a lot of people who refuse them and then go to trial are found not guilty.