Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 24 2018, @03:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the protect-and-serve dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @07:03PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @07:03PM (#657634)

    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)

    by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:43AM (#657720) Journal

    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)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:04AM (#657773) Journal

      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 ?

      The following would bring responsibility to the process:

      • The conviction is thrown out, all records on the victim's side being disposed of and/or anonymized
      • The victim of the prosecutor, judge and jury is recompensed directly from the judge and jury and prosecutor's pockets
      • The judge is removed from the bench for life, and if a lawyer, disbarred for life, and otherwise, disqualified for same
      • The entire prosecution team is disbarred for life
      • The jurors are disallowed from ever serving on a jury again, but instead do community service when their number comes up

      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)

        by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:41AM (#657819) Journal

        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

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:11PM (#657877) Journal

          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 ?

          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.

          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.

          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.

          The best we can do is strive to move forward with compassion and intent to do what is right, and hope for the best.

          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

      by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:54PM (#657993)

      >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?