SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the New York Times:
The [Bronx] court sealed the case file, hiding from view a problem so old and persistent that the criminal justice system sometimes responds with little more than a shrug: false testimony by the police.
[...] "Behind closed doors, we call it testilying," a New York City police officer, Pedro Serrano, said in a recent interview, echoing a word that officers coined at least 25 years ago. "You take the truth and stretch it out a little bit."
[...] An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer's testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.
In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects' hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight. They have barged into apartments and conducted searches, only to testify otherwise later. Under oath, they have given firsthand accounts of crimes or arrests that they did not in fact witness. They have falsely claimed to have watched drug deals happen, only to later recant or be shown to have lied.
[...] Many police officials and experts express optimism that the prevalence of cameras will reduce police lying. As officers begin to accept that digital evidence of an encounter will emerge, lying will be perceived as too risky — or so the thinking goes. [...]
Yet interviews with officers suggest the prevalence of cameras alone won't end police lying. That's because even with cameras present, some officers still figure — with good reason — that a lie is unlikely to be exposed. Because plea deals are a typical outcome [...]
"There's no fear of being caught," said one Brooklyn officer who has been on the force for roughly a decade. "You're not going to go to trial and nobody is going to be cross-examined."
[...] Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail — and that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free. Police falsehoods also impede judges' efforts to enforce constitutional limits on police searches and seizures.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday March 24 2018, @04:01PM (25 children)
People authorized to use deadly force must be held to much higher standards than the common citizen.
If it can be proven that a cop lied to get a conviction:
1. The victim should be immediately set free, rights restored, record cleaned etc.
2. The dirty cop must pay restitution to the victim for:
A. All expenses associated with attempting to defend himself in court, and something for the mental anguish as well.
B. All losses that can be documented and quantified, such as job, house, divorce...
C. Some large amount for EACH DAY under the thumb of the system, whether imprisoned, ankle braceleted, out on bond, on probation, etc.
D. Any other costs or losses the victim can show.
3. Then, the dirty cop should be placed in the exact same cell, for the same number of days, as the victim. Let the other inmates know that this is a cop who lied to put an apparently innocent person in, and offer the dirty cop no EXTRA protection beyond what every prisoner gets.
Rinse and repeat a few times, and maybe we can start to clean up this cesspool called "justice".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 24 2018, @04:57PM
It would be nice if things were that way, but it won't ever happen. In WA state, it's going to take a ballot initiative just to get to the point where cops don't have a total carte blanche to kill anyone at any time and face no consequences. http://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/killed-by-police/ [seattletimes.com]
Considering just how militarized and trigger happy police are in America, I find it somewhat shocking that in the gun control debate, cops are routinely exempted from the regulations.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:33PM (7 children)
Here in Arizona I see it all the time. People being stopped because they are brown. It is easy to boot strap reasonable suspicion into probable cause. Watching customs at the border patrol station they go by their 'gut' feeling and so called experience and training all the time, but the sad truth is they are correct quite often. Should the meth smuggler get away because there was no obvious proof he was smuggling other than it felt wrong to the officer. If a cop manufactures evidence I agree he/she should be held fully accountable. In reality if it is proved you lied, or perjured yourself to a judge you can kiss your witness value to a DA or in front of a judge goodbye. A cop who can't testify in court won't last long...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:35PM
My buddy (who is an ex-cop himself) beat a traffic ticket by tangling the ticketing cop up in his own lie in the courthouse. The details were something about running a stop sign and the location of the stop sign.
Of course, some people like to go to court and fight even for the simplest shit. Sure, there's the chance that the cop won't show up and the case will be dismissed, but unless you have a lot of vacation saved up or don't have to work for a living, the potential exists to lose more money not working during the fight than what would be lost in the ticket.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 24 2018, @08:53PM (5 children)
It is shocking you even ask such a question -- does the Bill of Rights mean nothing to you? In particular the 4th Amendment? What do you think separates America (at least idealistically) from a police state if not limitations on police powers. Historically, citizens' own governments have proven to be the greatest danger citizens face with bodies stacking up by the millions. I for one will whole heartedly accept a few junkies causing statistically insignificant mayhem over a government that can arrest, imprison, and/or kill any citizen it wants.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:03AM (1 child)
You also might want to consider that a great deal of that mayhem is because of the law. If the drug was cheap (which it should be) and readily available (which it also should be) and there was somewhere safe for these idiots to pursue their idiot habit, they'd have many fewer motivations to commit mayhem. And of course, for those who do, it would be more easily seen and dealt with - because we have no shortage of laws dealing with mayhem, nor should we.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:27AM
agreed
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:24AM (2 children)
Do you honestly believe that at any point in history law enforcement was anything but get lucky and see the crime, or statistically profile the situation based on the police officers gut feeling. They watch and react to things that don't feel right. The nervous twitch, the likeness of some half assed off base witnesses remembrance of the way the criminal looked ? He was a black guy, no he was Mexican, no way he was a mickey for sure, driving a red/blue ford/dodge pickup/station wagon.
I watched a George Lopez comedy show once. He was complaining about a white chick asking him to help her unlock the door to her car at home depot. He said he was just about to get really pissed off because she was assuming the Mexican could unlock her door, when he realized he DID have a slim Jim, and could unlock her door.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:28AM (1 child)
What does that have to do with tyranny?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:11AM
What is the abuse of justice and power but tyranny ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:13PM (6 children)
>If it can be proven that a cop lied to get a conviction:
>1. The victim should be immediately set free, rights restored, record cleaned etc.
this would be abused by sufficiently powerful criminals, all they need is a cop whom they have corrupted to arrest them irregularly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:05AM (5 children)
Cop lies: loses the job, and any ability ever get the job back, anywhere.
A very good use for a "Violation of Public Trust" registry.
With great power comes great responsibility. Or should.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:36AM (4 children)
Then step up and do the job rather than sit back and biatch. Those that can't, teach, those that can't teach, criticize. As a former deputy sheriff any officer who knowingly or willingly lies, whether to get the bad guy or cover up evidence of a crime should get what's coming to them. A lie of omission is a slightly different thing, as any defense attorney who is defending a criminal he KNOWS did the crime will attest to. I never understood the get out of jail free card idea either and I can say I've never worked anywhere that 'officially' acknowledged such a quid pro quo policy like they apparently do on the east coast.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:04AM
Anyone who quotes that tired bullshit about teachers is a moron. Then we find out you were accepted into law enforcement where they negatively select for intelligence. Things aren't looking good for you here.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:54AM (2 children)
I can't do the job (if we're talking about police work.) I do help with our local legislation. And I am teaching. But I can't make anyone learn. Some people refuse, others are incapable, yet others are bewildered beyond recovery. And the context... the entire system is corrupt and/or broken: legislation, enforcement, both the judicial process and the judiciary, and most of the punishment mechanisms. That's one serious hill to climb. I do try, but just as we see here in our little Soylent microcosm, there's a huge amount of toxic thinking throwing sand in the gears.
What do you mean by this? Given that you were a deputy sheriff, if you were good at it, I would expect you to have a very nuanced grasp on why things are supposed to work along the lines of holding the entire process to a very high standard (but usually don't, and I'd expect you to understand that end of it as well.) Care to elaborate?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:26AM (1 child)
Perhaps I was unclear, In stating that I don't understand the idea of institutionalizing systemic abuse of power I was expressing my disgust at the local group that supported such. As for my skill I was very good at it, if I hadn't turned my back on a crack whore who was being beaten by her husband and called for aid to help my partner subdue said husband and then decided the cops were at fault and hit me in the head with an iron skillet I might still be at the job. I get headaches to this day and oddly enough a joint seems to help more than anything. The world is a strange place...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:57PM
Nothing odd about it. Pot's usually a lovely thing. Almost all the ugly comes from idiot legislation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @07:03PM (5 children)
We ought to run the trial without the tainted testimony. The difference in the amount of punishment is the amount of harm.
Suppose the person has been in prison for 7 years, and the sentence is 20 years. If that gets reduced to a 10-year sentence, no harm has yet been done. If it is reduced to a 5-year sentence, then there have been 2 years of harm. Compensation for harm should be generous, making optimistic assumptions about the sort of life that the person could have lived.
Punishment for the cop ought to depend mostly on the degree of malice. By our typical standards, the punishment ought to be severe.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:43AM (4 children)
What about the thousands of criminals in jail based on eye witness testimony ? DNA testing is throwing new light on just how unreliable so-called eye witness testimony is. There has to a be a good faith line drawn in there some where. I agree and hope that the continued adoption of officer cameras and the prevalence of public cctv will help out. For that matter what happens when a jury of so called peers declares someone guilty based on their prejudices and ignorance and is later proved to be incorrect ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:04AM (2 children)
The following would bring responsibility to the process:
The problem with this is that because it actually puts responsibility on the people who make up the system to actually get things right, the system will tend to corrupt itself in such a way as to prevent re-examination of cases that need it. We already see this to some extent, but it would be worse if any of these malefactor's feet were held to the fire.
I think it likely that at some point in the future, invasive scanning techniques will definitively determine guilt or innocence, and this particular aspect of the problem will succumb to technology. That'll be one down, many more - most in the form of corrupt law - to go.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:41AM (1 child)
What about those that honestly think they are doing right and act as they 'think' correct ? Your solutions would work but the world is NOT black and white. What happens to those who in good faith make a bad judgement call, or are honestly mistaken ? As long as the system is run by and about humans there will be human error, but to remove humanity from the system doesn't seem the correct thing to do either. The best we can do is strive to move forward with compassion and intent to do what is right, and hope for the best. I for one am waiting for R.A Heinlein's fair witness to arrive on the scene...
https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/google-glass-scifi-robert-heinlein-the-fair-witness-effect [macobserver.com]
Someday we will all Grok goodness, until then we make due...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:11PM
I don't think anyone should be making "judgement calls" in determining someone's guilt. The consequences are too severe for handwaving. Either you have absolutely unimpeachable witnesses and evidence, or you don't have sufficient information to ruin someone's life. Come to that, the whole "ruin someone's life" thing is way out of hand.
Well, it does to me, considering that the typical handwaving is so bloody error-prone and the consequences of arrest and conviction both being so severe. I'm a lot more okay with the guilty going free than I am with the innocent having their lives ruined.
Yes, well, it's the rather profound lack of "striving to move forward" that tweaks me so badly.
(Score: 2) by tekk on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:54PM
>What about the thousands of criminals in jail based on eye witness testimony ?
Maybe make eyewitness testimony inadmissible or at the very least considered circumstantial?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:07AM (2 children)
That's a bit extreme. It is certainly a case for immediate retrial but the fact that the cop lied does not mean that the conviction was wrongful. I'm not willing to accept the immediate release of a serial child rapist because this one cop lied about something pertinent to the case.
No, they shouldn't. "An eye for an eye" is a terrible principle to use in a legal framework for more reasons than I care to list. But to appeal to your "tough on crime" sentiment, if a cop lied in order to get someone convinced over allegations of a very light offense, they might get a very light sentence for what is otherwise a much more serious crime.
Talk about cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody should ever be put in a situation where they could be harmed, regardless of the gravity of their crime. One injustice does not legitimize another.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:46AM
An eye for an eye is as much a call for moderation as it is heinous justice. Robert Heinlein wrote of a place that used exact justice. They called it evening I think, and suggested that a man who ran over someone be himself run over and wait for help just as long as the victim did. If you follow that thought process to the end it is horribly chilling. I am not nor would I want to be the ultimate judge, I am not qualified, nor do I believe anyone but God is and we aren't wise enough to interpret his will in simple things let alone life or death.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:30PM
We may have common ground here. But are you saying nobody should ever be imprisoned? What do we do with those who have established a long pattern of inability to control their violent impulses?
For those who aren't likely to continue harming others, I'd prefer a system where the criminal reimburses victims to one that just locks people away for arbitrarily long slices of their lives.