• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Guilty can't sue for false imprisonment

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Couple things...

1) The headline is not technically wrong, but it is a little misleading. It implies that no "guilty" person can sue the state of Iowa for false imprisonment, but read the story and only those who plead guilty, even if part of a plea bargain, cannot sue. Subtle, but significant and distinct difference.

I had read elsewhere a long time ago that Iowa's law means, in lay terms, that if you 'play a part' in your own guilty conviction, you cannot seek redress.

2) Is this legitimate as a blanket concept? I can see some logic to it, but not entirely. If a person pleads guilty to a lesser charge just to avoid a longer sentence, I can see that. You can be released if later evidence warrants that, but you should not be compensated.

But, if it comes out later that prosecutors withheld evidence, and in doing so presented that the case was stronger against them than it really was, then I say the convicted person should still be able to sue. (One possible scenario.)
Court: Guilty can't sue for false imprisonment

Court: Guilty can't sue for false imprisonment
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Couple things...

1) The headline is not technically wrong, but it is a little misleading. It implies that no "guilty" person can sue the state of Iowa for false imprisonment, but read the story and only those who plead guilty, even if part of a plea bargain, cannot sue. Subtle, but significant and distinct difference.

I had read elsewhere a long time ago that Iowa's law means, in lay terms, that if you 'play a part' in your own guilty conviction, you cannot seek redress.

2) Is this legitimate as a blanket concept? I can see some logic to it, but not entirely. If a person pleads guilty to a lesser charge just to avoid a longer sentence, I can see that. You can be released if later evidence warrants that, but you should not be compensated.

But, if it comes out later that prosecutors withheld evidence, and in doing so presented that the case was stronger against them than it really was, then I say the convicted person should still be able to sue. (One possible scenario.)

If a person lies to the court and says they're guilty when they aren't, they shouldn't be compensated.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Couple things...

1) The headline is not technically wrong, but it is a little misleading. It implies that no "guilty" person can sue the state of Iowa for false imprisonment, but read the story and only those who plead guilty, even if part of a plea bargain, cannot sue. Subtle, but significant and distinct difference.

I had read elsewhere a long time ago that Iowa's law means, in lay terms, that if you 'play a part' in your own guilty conviction, you cannot seek redress.

2) Is this legitimate as a blanket concept? I can see some logic to it, but not entirely. If a person pleads guilty to a lesser charge just to avoid a longer sentence, I can see that. You can be released if later evidence warrants that, but you should not be compensated.

But, if it comes out later that prosecutors withheld evidence, and in doing so presented that the case was stronger against them than it really was, then I say the convicted person should still be able to sue. (One possible scenario.)

When police officers can walk despite filling innocent men full of bullets on countless occasions, and politicians (most times) do not have to answer for their crimes, our Criminal Justice System is severely flawed. IMO, this only adds to my case.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Couple things...

1) The headline is not technically wrong, but it is a little misleading. It implies that no "guilty" person can sue the state of Iowa for false imprisonment, but read the story and only those who plead guilty, even if part of a plea bargain, cannot sue. Subtle, but significant and distinct difference.

I had read elsewhere a long time ago that Iowa's law means, in lay terms, that if you 'play a part' in your own guilty conviction, you cannot seek redress.

2) Is this legitimate as a blanket concept? I can see some logic to it, but not entirely. If a person pleads guilty to a lesser charge just to avoid a longer sentence, I can see that. You can be released if later evidence warrants that, but you should not be compensated.

But, if it comes out later that prosecutors withheld evidence, and in doing so presented that the case was stronger against them than it really was, then I say the convicted person should still be able to sue. (One possible scenario.)
I believe that each cases is different and that each should stand or fall on it's own merits, laws that use broad sweeping edicts usually throw Justice on the trash heap.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Couple things...

1) The headline is not technically wrong, but it is a little misleading. It implies that no "guilty" person can sue the state of Iowa for false imprisonment, but read the story and only those who plead guilty, even if part of a plea bargain, cannot sue. Subtle, but significant and distinct difference.

I had read elsewhere a long time ago that Iowa's law means, in lay terms, that if you 'play a part' in your own guilty conviction, you cannot seek redress.

2) Is this legitimate as a blanket concept? I can see some logic to it, but not entirely. If a person pleads guilty to a lesser charge just to avoid a longer sentence, I can see that. You can be released if later evidence warrants that, but you should not be compensated.

But, if it comes out later that prosecutors withheld evidence, and in doing so presented that the case was stronger against them than it really was, then I say the convicted person should still be able to sue. (One possible scenario.)

That's an odd one considering the level of coercion involved in the plea.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If a person lies to the court and says they're guilty when they aren't, they shouldn't be compensated.

Even if that "lie" is the result of the prosecutor and police lying to the individual and convincing them of their own guilt?
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Even if that "lie" is the result of the prosecutor and police lying to the individual and convincing them of their own guilt?

There are very few cases (e.g. negligent homicide) where the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain to the defendant. In the vast majority cases, false guilty pleas are the result of weak will, not weak intellect.
 

Socrates1

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
2,782
Reaction score
469
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
When police officers can walk despite filling innocent men full of bullets on countless occasions, and politicians (most times) do not have to answer for their crimes, our Criminal Justice System is severely flawed. IMO, this only adds to my case.

Very funny ! :roll:
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,047
Reaction score
62,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Couple things...

1) The headline is not technically wrong, but it is a little misleading. It implies that no "guilty" person can sue the state of Iowa for false imprisonment, but read the story and only those who plead guilty, even if part of a plea bargain, cannot sue. Subtle, but significant and distinct difference.

I had read elsewhere a long time ago that Iowa's law means, in lay terms, that if you 'play a part' in your own guilty conviction, you cannot seek redress.

2) Is this legitimate as a blanket concept? I can see some logic to it, but not entirely. If a person pleads guilty to a lesser charge just to avoid a longer sentence, I can see that. You can be released if later evidence warrants that, but you should not be compensated.

But, if it comes out later that prosecutors withheld evidence, and in doing so presented that the case was stronger against them than it really was, then I say the convicted person should still be able to sue. (One possible scenario.)

If it can be demonstrated that the prosecution and/or police acted negligently and maliciously, then the idea that a falsely convicted person can't seek recompensation is ridiculous.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,047
Reaction score
62,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If a person lies to the court and says they're guilty when they aren't, they shouldn't be compensated.

Police are allowed to lie to a suspect about the evidence they have against him, and the prosecution holds a disproportionate amount of power due to minimum sentencing. They can tell the defendant that he can plea to a lesser crime and "only" receive five years, or he can go to trial and get the mandatory minimum of, say, fifty years. Those who aren't of ironclad mental strength or aren't intimately educated with the law can break easily, especially seeing as not everyone can afford a good enough attorney to see them through a full court trial. And if you're a minority then pleaing down can seem like an attractive choice especially if you're aware that black defendants are more likely to be handed a guilty verdict. There are many reasons not to automatically accept the virtue of a guilty plea. These are just some of them.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Police are allowed to lie to a suspect about the evidence they have against him, and the prosecution holds a disproportionate amount of power due to minimum sentencing. They can tell the defendant that he can plea to a lesser crime and "only" receive five years, or he can go to trial and get the mandatory minimum of, say, fifty years. Those who aren't of ironclad mental strength or aren't intimately educated with the law can break easily, especially seeing as not everyone can afford a good enough attorney to see them through a full court trial. And if you're a minority then pleaing down can seem like an attractive choice especially if you're aware that black defendants are more likely to be handed a guilty verdict. There are many reasons not to automatically accept the virtue of a guilty plea. These are just some of them.

Police officers who falsely claim to have evidence against someone should be fired and should go to confession promptly, but that's not the point. It is in fact irrelevant, because the defendant is entitled to the truth of the matter when the case goes to court (as the prosecution is not allowed to lie to the court about the evidence). The point is, that if you falsely assert your own guilt to the court, then you are responsible for your own false conviction. Whether someone else is also responsible is irrelevant.

For the record, I am opposed to the legality of inter-charge plea bargaining, but that's not the subject here.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,047
Reaction score
62,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Police officers who falsely claim to have evidence against someone should be fired and should go to confession promptly, but that's not the point.

They won't be fired, because falsely claiming to have evidence is legal.

It is in fact irrelevant, because the defendant is entitled to the truth of the matter when the case goes to court (as the prosecution is not allowed to lie to the court about the evidence).

Which is irrelevant at that point if the police have succeeded after two days of interrogation in getting the suspect to incriminate himself in some way (at best) or get a false confession out of him (at worst).

The point is, that if you falsely assert your own guilt to the court, then you are responsible for your own false conviction. Whether someone else is also responsible is irrelevant.

The point is that there are numerous reasons why the assumption of guilt is not sacrosanct, due to reasons dealing with dishonesty and manipulation by the prosecution and law enforcement.

For the record, I am opposed to the legality of inter-charge plea bargaining, but that's not the subject here.

It's the subject because, to rebut your position, it's a part of the criminal process that casts doubt on the credibility of guilty verdicts.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
They won't be fired, because falsely claiming to have evidence is legal.



Which is irrelevant at that point if the police have succeeded after two days of interrogation in getting the suspect to incriminate himself in some way (at best) or get a false confession out of him (at worst).



The point is that there are numerous reasons why the assumption of guilt is not sacrosanct, due to reasons dealing with dishonesty and manipulation by the prosecution and law enforcement.



It's the subject because, to rebut your position, it's a part of the criminal process that casts doubt on the credibility of guilty verdicts.

The credibility of guilty verdicts isn't the point. The point is that if you harm yourself, you shouldn't be able to sue the people who told you to harm yourself.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,047
Reaction score
62,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The credibility of guilty verdicts isn't the point. The point is that if you harm yourself, you shouldn't be able to sue the people who told you to harm yourself.

It is the point. I was also responding to an earlier post of yours in which you said that "There are very few cases (e.g. negligent homicide) where the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain to the defendant."

So in light of just the few examples I've given, the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain. Apparently you weren't aware until I told you that police can lie about the evidence. They can also lie that someone is ratting on you upstairs, and whether or not that's even true that will invoke the principle of the prisoner's dilemma, thus making any self incrimination worthless. Finally, due to the plea bargaining issue, you "accepting" a guilty plea has next to zero credibility when taken at face value.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If the police are legally allowed to lie, then the police should be potentially liable for any incorrect results that come about from said lie.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
that is why you plead not guilty and have your day in court.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
that is why you plead not guilty and have your day in court.
And, if you do and lose, you get 40 years instead of 5. And the system is set up for you to most likely lose. Prosecution has huge budgets. If you can't afford your own GOOD attorney, the chances of a public defender being good is slim. Juries and judges are still, for the most part, pre-disposed to thinking you must be guilty of something just because you're there.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And, if you do and lose, you get 40 years instead of 5. And the system is set up for you to most likely lose. Prosecution has huge budgets. If you can't afford your own GOOD attorney, the chances of a public defender being good is slim. Juries and judges are still, for the most part, pre-disposed to thinking you must be guilty of something just because you're there.

either way you are going to jail. at least one way you have recourse if convicted fasely.
the other way you are just out of luck.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,448
Reaction score
8,686
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If a person lies to the court and says they're guilty when they aren't, they shouldn't be compensated.

That argument certainly has a lot of emotional appeal and normally I'd agree except that the system is designed to coerce plea deals out of everyone in it - innocent and guilty alike.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Police are allowed to lie to a suspect about the evidence they have against him, and the prosecution holds a disproportionate amount of power due to minimum sentencing. They can tell the defendant that he can plea to a lesser crime and "only" receive five years, or he can go to trial and get the mandatory minimum of, say, fifty years. Those who aren't of ironclad mental strength or aren't intimately educated with the law can break easily, especially seeing as not everyone can afford a good enough attorney to see them through a full court trial. And if you're a minority then pleaing down can seem like an attractive choice especially if you're aware that black defendants are more likely to be handed a guilty verdict. There are many reasons not to automatically accept the virtue of a guilty plea. These are just some of them.

That's why they have these people called "lawyers". Since you obviously have never heard of them, let me provide you with some links to help you get educated about them so you don't have to look like you're clueless.
What is a Lawyer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer
What Is A Lawyer
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
either way you are going to jail. at least one way you have recourse if convicted fasely.
the other way you are just out of luck.
Which option would you take if you had to choose between 40 years and 5 years?

I've asked myself that before and I can't come up with a definitive answer. I like to think I'd take my chances and fight it, purely out of principle, but I can't say for sure unless I'm really faced with that decision.

Factor in also, at my age, even if I did get 5 years, by the time I got out I'd be financially devastated, unemployable, and leading a miserable life, even if free. I might figure my life is over then anyway, and take my chances and if I lose let the government take care of me until the end.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,047
Reaction score
62,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's why they have these people called "lawyers". Since you obviously have never heard of them, let me provide you with some links to help you get educated about them so you don't have to look like you're clueless.
What is a Lawyer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer
What Is A Lawyer

Thanks, but I saw an episode of CSI some years ago so the concept is passably familiar to me. As is the fact that public defenders are overworked and often know less about the case than the prosecution, that they'll often encourage their client to accept the lesser plea deal, and that most people can't afford high priced, competent lawyers anyway.
 
Last edited:

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,047
Reaction score
62,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which option would you take if you had to choose between 40 years and 5 years?

I've asked myself that before and I can't come up with a definitive answer. I like to think I'd take my chances and fight it, purely out of principle, but I can't say for sure unless I'm really faced with that decision.

Factor in also, at my age, even if I did get 5 years, by the time I got out I'd be financially devastated, unemployable, and leading a miserable life, even if free. I might figure my life is over then anyway, and take my chances and if I lose let the government take care of me until the end.

It's like when Verbal Kent was asked why he didn't shoot Keyzer Soze when he had the chance. He responded, "How do you shoot the devil, Detective? What if you miss?"
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which option would you take if you had to choose between 40 years and 5 years?

I've asked myself that before and I can't come up with a definitive answer. I like to think I'd take my chances and fight it, purely out of principle, but I can't say for sure unless I'm really faced with that decision.

Factor in also, at my age, even if I did get 5 years, by the time I got out I'd be financially devastated, unemployable, and leading a miserable life, even if free. I might figure my life is over then anyway, and take my chances and if I lose let the government take care of me until the end.

depends on what the arrest is for. if it is felony then I will take my chances. at least when proven innocent I can sue the state or the
state will have to pay reparations for false imprisonment.

having the ability to collect is better than not collecting and not being able to work after that.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is the point. I was also responding to an earlier post of yours in which you said that "There are very few cases (e.g. negligent homicide) where the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain to the defendant."

So in light of just the few examples I've given, the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain. Apparently you weren't aware until I told you that police can lie about the evidence. They can also lie that someone is ratting on you upstairs, and whether or not that's even true that will invoke the principle of the prisoner's dilemma, thus making any self incrimination worthless. Finally, due to the plea bargaining issue, you "accepting" a guilty plea has next to zero credibility when taken at face value.

Apparently you're just not thinking here.

The defendant knows whether or not he's really guilty. At best, the police can convince him that he's been successfully framed, but unless he's retarded, they can't convince him that he actually is guilty.

That argument certainly has a lot of emotional appeal and normally I'd agree except that the system is designed to coerce plea deals out of everyone in it - innocent and guilty alike.

That's true but not the point. The point is, that if you bring harm on yourself, you shouldn't be able to sue whoever helped you. That's not an emotional argument btw.
 
Top Bottom