Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

daviddfriedman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#21

Post by dcminter »

refurb wrote: post #6
LightHugger wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a difference in that one way is a useful psychological manipulation and one is not. There is no difference in the way you seem to suggest.

How is offering a lesser punishment "manipulation"? As a defendant, it's simply a choice - "Do I think I can beat this case?". If you don't think you can, then you take the lesser punishment. If you think you can beat it, you decline it because the better choice is "no punishment at all".

Would you prefer a 10% chance of a death penalty or a 100% chance of a 1 year prison sentence? Exaggerated, but it makes the point clear.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#22

Post by thaumasiotes »

mrkeen wrote: post #17
refurb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime That's not true. Plea bargains can be incredibly minor punishments versus the crime. Plea bargains are the flip side of the prosecutions options. If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a very severe sentence. If the pro…

> If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all > 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.

> Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away

Note that while you're correct about what those statements would mean in combination, refurb's statement is false. There is very little point in examining what would follow from the invented claims of someone with no idea what he's talking about.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#23

Post by lelanthran »

southerntofu wrote: post #19
infotainment wrote: post #8

This seems like a really shallow take masquerading as a deep one. The core assertion that offering a lesser punishment in exchange for cooperation is a form of “torture” strikes me as an extreme exaggeration.

Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? It's hard to imagine until you've gone through this. But yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". Being manipulated by the cops into a fake testimony is torture. Having the cops fake evidence and their testimonies to harass you is torture. Remaining days in a room…

> Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention?

Yes.

> ut yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture".

If you classify everything you don't like as " some form of torture", then sure you have a point.

But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent. All we can do is go through the process that we have.

It's beyond hyperbole to suggest that any and all you lements of the justice system is a form of torture.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#25

Post by andrepd »

lelanthran wrote: post #23
southerntofu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? It's hard to imagine until you've gone through this. But yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". Being manipulated by the cops into a fake testimony is torture. Having the cops fake evidence and their testimonies to harass you is torture. Remaining days in a room…

> Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? Yes. > ut yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". If you classify everything you don't like as " some form of torture", then sure you have a point. But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent. All we can do is go through the process tha…

>But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent.

A basic principle of any civilised society is "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". I will not waste time explaining why this is important.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#26

Post by rambambram »

refurb wrote: post #2

The modern version, a plea bargain, is motivated by the threat of a much more severe sentence if the defendant insists on a trial and is convicted. This is looking at it backwards. It's not a threat of a "more severe sentence", it's a threat of a default sentence (the same sentence the accused would get if plea bargaining didn't exist at all). The plea bargain is an offer of a lesser sentence. That distinction makes…

There is - at least on paper - a big distinction between a prosecutor and a judge. It's called 'trias politica'. Maybe you should look it up.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#27

Post by rambambram »

refurb wrote: post #5
ajb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains, why would you imagine that sentencing is calibrated based on the 3% jury trials? There are obvious political incentives for this not to be the case, given how much voters are annoyed by convicts getting off lightly. Also, the main point is that confessions based on threats are much poorer evidence of guilt than a proper trial.

> Given that 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains, why would you imagine that sentencing is calibrated based on the 3% jury trials? Because that's not how you measure options. If I'm collecting a debt of $1,000 from you, and I come to you and say "hey, if you pay it this week, I'll settle for only $700", would you say "This person is stealing $300 from me!"? Of course not. You always owed $1,000. This is an…

And now you are going from criminal law to civil disputes. Hardly comparable.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#28

Post by watwut »

southerntofu wrote: post #20
refurb wrote: post #2

The modern version, a plea bargain, is motivated by the threat of a much more severe sentence if the defendant insists on a trial and is convicted. This is looking at it backwards. It's not a threat of a "more severe sentence", it's a threat of a default sentence (the same sentence the accused would get if plea bargaining didn't exist at all). The plea bargain is an offer of a lesser sentence. That distinction makes…

I feel like you are looking at it backwards. When the prosecutor proposes a plea bargain, it's usually because they don't have enough proof to get a proper conviction through a juge/jury, or at least it is so here in France. A plea bargain is used to convict innocent people, by giving them a choice between a plea punishment, and the punishment of having to go through pre-trial detention and various forms of abuses be…

Majority of cases are settled by plea bargain 96% or something like that. It is used whether there is evidence or not, because it is fast and cheap.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#29

Post by refurb »

mrkeen wrote: post #17
refurb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime That's not true. Plea bargains can be incredibly minor punishments versus the crime. Plea bargains are the flip side of the prosecutions options. If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a very severe sentence. If the pro…

> If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all > 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.

> Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.

Generally? No. Sometimes? Sure.

And yes, you could view it as a threat. That's the nature of a adversarial justic system. The same way that police will tell you they'll arrest you for standing on a sidewalk. It's often an empty threat.

It's why we provide legal services to defendants. So you can have a trained lawyer look at the evidence and tell you what you chances are of a not guilty verdict. Then the defendant can decide if a chance at not guilty is worth turning down a plea bargain.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#30

Post by draugadrotten »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #24

He didn’t mention that the plea deal doesn’t care if you are innocent and even if you are innocence and are found innocent you might do 3 years in jail awaiting trial (bail is for wealthy people)

There are even people waiting 10+ years for a trial. https://reason.com/2023/07/26/he-spent-10-years-behind-bars-...

This is clearly the best justice. Believe me. We have triumphed over evil like nobody has seen before. I believe it’s a rough situation over there. There’s no question about it. The past does not have to define the future. It’s idealistic, it’s wonderful, it’s a beautiful thing.

Post reply on HN