Attitudes towards the police

[Coito ergo sum]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

No, actually, in law they are not 100% innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can occur. However, a person treated as 100% innocent of a crime could not, for example, be denied their liberty without being convicted. People arrested for crimes can, in fact, be held in jail and even many times denied bail altogether all the way up to trial.

If a person were treated as 100% innocent until convicted the police could not arrest them. However, they can. They find probable cause that the person is guilty of the crime and arrest the guy.

What we're talking about are degrees of proof. Probable cause of guilt vs. beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do courts issue arrest warrants against people they believe to be 100% innocent? No. The police believe the person to be guilty, so they swear an affidavit stating as much and then the court issues a warrant to arrest the person. The person is not CONVICTED until guilt is ultimately proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, just as having a warrant issued for your arrest and even being convicted in court does not mean you are, in fact, guilty, being released or even acquitted doesn't mean your innocent.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm confused. How has 'innocent until proven guilty' got anything to do with avoiding getting arrested, by not breaking the law in the first place?

Nothing whatsoever.

[JimC]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

Pappa, it is a very important and useful legal concept, and is an integral part of justice in most western countries. In this sense, innocent means "has not been convicted of the crime" and guilty means "have been convicted of the crime"

However, that terminology can be disconnected from a rational standpoint. When arrested, clearly a suspect may have committed the crime he is alleged to have done, or he may not. If he has, whether it has yet been proved in a court of law, he should be found guilty. Of course, there are some cases where the suspect will be found not guilty due to a legal cock-up or simple lack of evidence, and sentencing is a whole new area...

The important point in a statistical sense is what % of suspects arrested have actually commited the crime they were arrested for. The higher the %, the more efficient the detective work, at least in some ways... Then, the % of those arrested and truly guilty (in my sense of the word) that are subsequently found guilty in court is a measure of the efficiency of the prosecutors.

[Pappa]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

No, actually, in law they are not 100% innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can occur. However, a person treated as 100% innocent of a crime could not, for example, be denied their liberty without being convicted. People arrested for crimes can, in fact, be held in jail and even many times denied bail altogether all the way up to trial.

If a person were treated as 100% innocent until convicted the police could not arrest them. However, they can. They find probable cause that the person is guilty of the crime and arrest the guy.

What we're talking about are degrees of proof. Probable cause of guilt vs. beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do courts issue arrest warrants against people they believe to be 100% innocent? No. The police believe the person to be guilty, so they swear an affidavit stating as much and then the court issues a warrant to arrest the person. The person is not CONVICTED until guilt is ultimately proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, just as having a warrant issued for your arrest and even being convicted in court does not mean you are, in fact, guilty, being released or even acquitted doesn't mean your innocent.

I can't be arsed writing at length, so I'll just highlight the relevant point in your post.

[Cunt]

Well that's disappointing. I thought you were going to have some meaningful point, - but that's got nothing to with the fact that if you don't break the law, you are unlikely to be arrested.

The point that you are missing is that EVERYONE who is in the process of being arrested is innocent. They deserve the same level of respectful treatment as you think you do.

Just because someone is arrested doesn't mean they are guilty. The police don't deal with 'guilty' people, though they do tend to treat them as such.

--o--0--o--

The fact that the police are handling innocent citizens should give you all a hint that it really might be you someday.

If the police want to remove some of a citizens liberties, there are strict ways they can do this. Trouble is, most people haven't the foggiest clue what their rights are, so the police bully and trick them into giving them up. It's not even slightly hidden that they can be quite dishonest with victims of their 'interviews'.

I once knew an 18 year old woman who was held in a little room with a closed door with several experienced professionals interviewing her for FOUR HOURS. She never knew that, because they were not arresting her, she could have simply left. I am sure there are one or two better examples out there if one bothers looking.

Do you think the police could search your car tomorrow when you are driving around minding your own business?
Do you think some error or malice could cause you to be arrested?
Do you think you could sit through a police interview and not incriminate yourself? (again, presuming your innocence?)

I doubt that I could...I will try if I ever find myself arrested for something, but I think, innocent or guilty, you are quite likely to incriminate yourself because of the usual ways cops have of manipulating interviewees.

It's horrendous. I think the only thing to do is to expose your local cops every time they screw up. I am too chicken to do it, though. Maybe when I grow up I will be braver.

How about you all? How many of you would investigate and expose police corruption? I would (secretly) add funds to such an endeavor. Who wants to get evidence and citizens-arrest their local criminal-police hybrids?

[Robert_S]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copwatch

[Cunt]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

Thank you, Pappa.

I was recently a jury member in my area, and the judge, in front of the court reporter, the other jurors, the press, baliffs, sheriff, press and regular spectators told everyone in no uncertain terms that the man who had been held in custody and was now the defendant was INNOCENT until the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that caused us to find him guilty.

I don't remember all of Justice Cooper's words, but he was quite convincing.

I'm confused. How has 'innocent until proven guilty' got anything to do with avoiding getting arrested, by not breaking the law in the first place?

You might get arrested even if you don't break the law. Also, those who break the law have the right to be treated fairly and respectfully. Beating people to death - even if they are 'criminal' - isn't something that is acceptable.

At least not to me.

Even if you DO break the law, Psychoserenity, I don't think you should be subject to beatings or any other treatment which can't be bragged about publicly.

[Cunt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copwatch

Nice...looks kind of thin at the moment, but it could be grown...

[Pappa]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

Pappa, it is a very important and useful legal concept, and is an integral part of justice in most western countries. In this sense, innocent means "has not been convicted of the crime" and guilty means "have been convicted of the crime"

However, that terminology can be disconnected from a rational standpoint. When arrested, clearly a suspect may have committed the crime he is alleged to have done, or he may not. If he has, whether it has yet been proved in a court of law, he should be found guilty. Of course, there are some cases where the suspect will be found not guilty due to a legal cock-up or simple lack of evidence, and sentencing is a whole new area...

The important point in a statistical sense is what % of suspects arrested have actually commited the crime they were arrested for. The higher the %, the more efficient the detective work, at least in some ways... Then, the % of those arrested and truly guilty (in my sense of the word) that are subsequently found guilty in court is a measure of the efficiency of the prosecutors.

Well, obviously mistakes will always be made, but I meant in the sense that legally if someone is found not guilty in court, then they are innocent. If they are found guilty in court, then they are guilty (in the eyes of the law, and regardless of whether or not they committed the crime). As such, you can call someone convicted of raping children a paedophile in print, but if you did that to someone who had not yet been found guilty of that crime (or has been found not guilty of that crime) you will yourself be breaking the law by saying so. That's what I mean by it being the acid test. Not that it is infallible, just that it is the only way a decision can be made.

[JimC]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

Pappa, it is a very important and useful legal concept, and is an integral part of justice in most western countries. In this sense, innocent means "has not been convicted of the crime" and guilty means "have been convicted of the crime"

However, that terminology can be disconnected from a rational standpoint. When arrested, clearly a suspect may have committed the crime he is alleged to have done, or he may not. If he has, whether it has yet been proved in a court of law, he should be found guilty. Of course, there are some cases where the suspect will be found not guilty due to a legal cock-up or simple lack of evidence, and sentencing is a whole new area...

The important point in a statistical sense is what % of suspects arrested have actually commited the crime they were arrested for. The higher the %, the more efficient the detective work, at least in some ways... Then, the % of those arrested and truly guilty (in my sense of the word) that are subsequently found guilty in court is a measure of the efficiency of the prosecutors.

Well, obviously mistakes will always be made, but I meant in the sense that legally if someone is found not guilty in court, then they are innocent. If they are found guilty in court, then they are guilty (in the eyes of the law, and regardless of whether or not they committed the crime). As such, you can call someone convicted of raping children a paedophile in print, but if you did that to someone who had not yet been found guilty of that crime (or has been found not guilty of that crime) you will yourself be breaking the law by saying so. That's what I mean by it being the acid test. Not that it is infallible, just that it is the only way a decision can be made.

Certainly it is a portrait in the social context of how we agree collectively to view people in that situation...

But even then, there are caveats. People who are charged with serious crimes, and are deemed by a court to be a risk of either flight, re-offending or violence against witnesses will be refused bail, and remanded in custody...

Not the normal way of treating people deemed "innocent"

In many ways, it is a polite and useful legal fiction, a statement of a social contract about how we view justice...

[Pappa]

But even then, there are caveats. People who are charged with serious crimes, and are deemed by a court to be a risk of either flight, re-offending or violence against witnesses will be refused bail, and remanded in custody...

Not the normal way of treating people deemed "innocent"

I suppose they are just pragmatic measures and always understood to be temporary though. The accused knows they will be either jailed or freed after a relatively short period of time.

We now have a situations though where people are held indefinitely without trial (such as Belmarsh here and Guantanamo for the US). That's awful. The UK government have repeatedly been told they are breaking the law by holding detainees indefinitely, though they continued finding ways to ignore the rulings. I'm not sure how the new ConDem alliance is dealing with it (much the same, I would imagine).

[JimC]

But even then, there are caveats. People who are charged with serious crimes, and are deemed by a court to be a risk of either flight, re-offending or violence against witnesses will be refused bail, and remanded in custody...

Not the normal way of treating people deemed "innocent"

I suppose they are just pragmatic measures and always understood to be temporary though. The accused knows they will be either jailed or freed after a relatively short period of time.

We now have a situations though where people are held indefinitely without trial (such as Belmarsh here and Guantanamo for the US). That's awful. The UK government have repeatedly been told they are breaking the law by holding detainees indefinitely, though they continued finding ways to ignore the rulings. I'm not sure how the new ConDem alliance is dealing with it (much the same, I would imagine).

Pragmatic measures that are understood by all (but never stated) to reflect a realistic probabilty of their actual guilt...

However, I agree that it is important that it is only an interlude before a formal court hearing...

On the case of indefinite detention, in principle I agree, but there are situations where releasing a terrorist may put the public at real risk of harm. The information which suggests that may not be of a nature acceptable to courts, and yet perfectly rational for all that... The nature of terrorism means that the mechanisms that society has developed for dealing with those suspected of straight forward crimes may not realistically work...

[Pappa]

On the case of indefinite detention, in principle I agree, but there are situations where releasing a terrorist may put the public at real risk of harm. The information which suggests that may not be of a nature acceptable to courts, and yet perfectly rational for all that... The nature of terrorism means that the mechanisms that society has developed for dealing with those suspected of straight forward crimes may not realistically work...

I don't buy that argument about terrorism. In the UK in the 80s we had persistent problems with IRA terrorism (directed at MPs too). Yet the government didn't introduce such measures as detention without trial or secret hearings. Only since 9/11 has it become 'acceptable' for governments to do those kind of things. I know it's a thorny issue that doesn't have a solution, but the fact that a person can be locked up indefinitely without trial and on evidence that cannot by evaluated in any way by the public (or sometimes even the detainees own legal representative) is completely shocking. How did we get to that in a few short years?

[JimC]

On the case of indefinite detention, in principle I agree, but there are situations where releasing a terrorist may put the public at real risk of harm. The information which suggests that may not be of a nature acceptable to courts, and yet perfectly rational for all that... The nature of terrorism means that the mechanisms that society has developed for dealing with those suspected of straight forward crimes may not realistically work...

I don't buy that argument about terrorism. In the UK in the 80s we had persistent problems with IRA terrorism (directed at MPs too). Yet the government didn't introduce such measures as detention without trial or secret hearings. Only since 9/11 has it become 'acceptable' for governments to do those kind of things. I know it's a thorny issue that doesn't have a solution, but the fact that a person can be locked up indefinitely without trial and on evidence that cannot by evaluated in any way by the public (or sometimes even the detainees own legal representative) is completely shocking. How did we get to that in a few short years?

I am honestly uncertain, and the concept brings me disquiet, but what of the possible situation where such abrogation of normal civil rights saves people from a repeat of the Bali bombings or the London bombings? I know that it is all too easy for a government to use such a possibility to erode principles of justice, but at the same time one has a vision of terrorists laughing at western societies because they are too "polite" to act firmly and pragmatically?

[Pappa]

On the case of indefinite detention, in principle I agree, but there are situations where releasing a terrorist may put the public at real risk of harm. The information which suggests that may not be of a nature acceptable to courts, and yet perfectly rational for all that... The nature of terrorism means that the mechanisms that society has developed for dealing with those suspected of straight forward crimes may not realistically work...

I don't buy that argument about terrorism. In the UK in the 80s we had persistent problems with IRA terrorism (directed at MPs too). Yet the government didn't introduce such measures as detention without trial or secret hearings. Only since 9/11 has it become 'acceptable' for governments to do those kind of things. I know it's a thorny issue that doesn't have a solution, but the fact that a person can be locked up indefinitely without trial and on evidence that cannot by evaluated in any way by the public (or sometimes even the detainees own legal representative) is completely shocking. How did we get to that in a few short years?

I am honestly uncertain, and the concept brings me disquiet, but what of the possible situation where such abrogation of normal civil rights saves people from a repeat of the Bali bombings or the London bombings? I know that it is all too easy for a government to use such a possibility to erode principles of justice, but at the same time one has a vision of terrorists laughing at western societies because they are too "polite" to act firmly and pragmatically?

The problem is, if the government believe they don't have enough evidence against a terrorist suspect to convict them, then it is simply wrong that they hold them indefinitely anyway. They may believe they are terrorists, but it's not up to the government to decide guilt, it's a court's job. Secondary to that is the matter of secret intelligence that the government seem so keen on keeping private and out of court. We have strict laws in the UK that are used often to bar the reporting of lots of cases. Sometimes they are high profile cases, other times they are simply cases where the privacy of those involved is important (such as rape cases). It is normal procedure for reporting restrictions to be put in place on many types of case, and it is already illegal for jurors to discuss anything that went on in court, even after a conviction is made. I don't see how these laws are not enough to stop the reporting of details in terrorist cases, the penalties are already quite stiff and could easily be made stiffer for matters of national security. Jurors would presumably be made to sign the official secrets act if they were shown sensitive intelligence too - which comes with it's own set of penalties.

I do believe that these laws were shoved upon us at a moment we were likely to accept them unquestioningly (without realising the consequences). They're unnecessary and dangerous.