Only in name. If whatever the cops say is to be taken as gospel, then the burden of proof is rather light in practice. A trial is merely a formality, since the police have already demonstrated that they believe the person is guilty.
> It's just that real people won't accept your theory if you have nothing but the general supposition that the cops are creeps.
Yes, I can see that this would be inadequate. However that wasn't my supposition at all and in fact it bears no relationship to what I actually said. What I said was that cops were known to plant evidence and tell lies in court, I think you'll find that most people are aware of this, although it is not known how often it happens. I don't know myself how often it happens, it is probably more common in jurisdictions which deny it ever happens.
Personally, I learned as a child that it happens, when a couple of cops who had dragged me in off the street (I was wagging school) to question me about some minor crime, explained frankly that this was how things were done. They suggested I save them the trouble of concocting a confession by giving them a real one. I was so outraged that I flatly refused to speak a word to them after that.
After a couple of hours of rough treatment, threats to throw me out a second story window and assertions that my accomplice had confessed, they got sick of my surly silence and released us. Of course, having just been told by the cops that they would simply concoct a confession if I didn't give them one, I didn't believe it for a second when they told me that my accomplice in the Great Cordial Bottle Heist had given Queens evidence against me. Turned out that bit was true though, but I kept my contempt for my erstwhile partner-in-crime to myself.
Anyhow, I was quite disappointed that the cops didn't bother to prosecute us after all that, I was looking forward to screaming blue murder in court and had even committed some of the badge numbers to memory. I still have the badge number of sergeant "24", the first one to strike me, burned into my memory. He'll probably be dead or long retired by now, but you never know. >:-)
Of course, just because cops lie, doesn't mean everything they say is a lie. But what it does mean, quite inescapably, is that their word doesn't count for anything on its own. I'm sorry if you feel that accepting this logic would be inconvenient, would prevent the state from imprisoning the people you think should be imprisoned. But if that's what you think should happen, then why (apart from professional reasons) do you think there is any need for a trial at all? Why not just let the police lock up whoever they see fit and save the expense of show trials?
> In some communities, btw, that supposition may go further than others. A friend of mine who is a federal prosecutor in DC says that in his "state court" (Superioe Court) work, his conviction rate is way lower than the the usual 97-99% he gets in his federal court work.
My heart bleeds for him.
>As I note, your view is that no one should ever be criminally prosecuted for anything. It's a view, one can say that much for it.
I plead not guilty. Prove it.
> See if you can persuade anyone of it. With regard to the "planting evidence" issue, I note that no one requires that the defendant take up the practical burden of arguing a frameup theory. El-Amin might have argued self-defense or provovation,a s JB and I have been discussing.
>
>As to your corroboration theory, independently corroborated by what? According to you, the cops and the scientisdts (that is, the prosecution's forensic experts) can't be trusted not to cheat. So how is this corroboration to proceed?
Independent scientists? Verifiable, peer review of the interpretation of results presented to the courts? Videotaped records of interview. Is it that hard to work out?
> Once agsin, we are back to your idea that no one should ever be criiminally prosecuted.
This interpretation of what I say is unsupported by anything I have said. It is rather feeble.
>Maybe life is nicer in AZN, but I live in Chicago, which is full of really bad guys who rob and rape and kill people. I defend some of them.
Police are usually recruited from the same community as the criminal class you know. If the criminals are vicious ethic-free zones, a good percentage of the cops probably are too. In fact the worse the criminals, the worse the cops, since they tend to interact quite a bit. So your logic that bad crooks means you'll have good cops seems a bit far-fetched.
> One of my clients is a gang murderer. I'll get him off if I can (though I doubt that I can), but between you and me, we're all safer if he's in jail,
I think he'd be better off defending himself, if you don't mind me saying so. I wouldn't want a lawyer acting for me who thought that we'd all be better off with me in jail. Can't help wondering if that attitude might, entirely unconsciously, affect your judgement.
> though I think the 30 years he's doing is too much. Ten years would probably be enough to give him a reason to change his ways, especially if they gave him the education he didn't get in school.
30 years is a long time. Even vicious gang murderers can change, though a few years in jail to reflect on the value of life doesn't always hurt. Too long can instill the wrong message though, giving little incentive to reform. There's a famous Tasmanian gang murderer, Mark "Chopper" Reid, who comes to mind. wrote a couple of books about his vicious exploits and is quite wealthy now. They've just made a movie about him, called 'Chopper', from memory.
I feel a bit safer knowing he's got something to lose nowadays though. Hopefully there's less likelihood of him blowing people away on the slightest provocation now that he can compare the lifestyle convicted killers endure to his present one.
But lots of people don't get much of an education, that's feeble mitigation. Hope you aren't planning to use it in court?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas