The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

Post by graphe » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #37

k__ wrote: post #31

"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…

That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like innocent until proven guilty). It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence, the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each acquittal, and try them again…

Post by alephnerd » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #35

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)

For us mere peasants, there is a term "preventive detention" such they say is NOT an arrest so you do not have rich things like habeas corpus or bail. Plus, this is usually pre-crime detention so there is no crime, no case, no enquiry, no courts. Its fun https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/5001/5/Preven... Another nice thing t was held that the law of preventive detention is not unconstitutional since it h…

Post by k__ » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 2:09 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #33

k__ wrote: post #31

"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…

Although my first reaction is to support the idea of being able to retry cases when new evidence emerges, I can see the pitfalls if this were applied in a real-world justice system. There would have to be some pretty big barriers to overcome to prevent abuse (on the usual suspects, the poor and/or people the police/politicians just don't like) and then more rules to make sure those barriers themselves aren't used as…

Post by watwut » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 2:19 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #29

mrkeen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 side…

Post by watwut » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #44

KingMob wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is offering a lesser punishment "manipulation"? It's part of a larger manipulative pattern. Since you can increase the penalties for jury convictions to absurd levels, like the USA has done, even a "lesser" plea bargain punishment can still be more punitive than most nations' jury conviction punishments. Plus, as the length of a jury conviction punishment increases, the threshold at which one's willing to risk…

> Since you can increase the penalties for jury convictions to absurd levels What? Juries follow the law and the prescribed punishments. Maybe you're thinking of civil penalties?