Court: Guilty can't sue for false imprisonment

[Gaius46]

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.

I agree it isn't an emotional argument but it has an emotional appeal insofar as it doesn't reward someone for lying. The difference though is that the lie is prompted by government actions - "take this one year plea deal and we'll not load up enough charges to get you put away for the rest of your life if you go to trial and lose"
Lots of people looking at those as alternatives will cut their losses when they would have gone to trial without the plea deal. So in that sense it's coercive and we as a society tend to look at coerced decisions with lots of suspicion and often invalidate them outright.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Irrelevant, because the defendant would be making a decision based on what the worst possible outcome might be, not whether or not he's guilty. If offered a sentence of five years if they plea now or fifty years if they go to trial, one has to weigh what kind of chance one should take. Of the people offered this choice, 97% accept the lesser sentence. That's an insanely high number.

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.

You're wearing that mantra as your coat of armor, but it just isn't going to fly. The defendant in his situation essentially has no leverage. If you were in their position: five years for a crime you didn't commit vs fifty years if you take it trial, you yourself would not find that an easy choice to make. One choice lets you still have a life to live, the other may remove that life entirely.

 

[Dittohead not!]

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

The only reason one would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit would be if he were convinced that a trial would result in an even harsher punishment. If he'd been misled, he should be able to sue.

One must wonder: Just how many innocents do we have among the 2 million plus prisoners in this beacon of freedom?

 

[Gaius46]

The only reason one would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit would be if he were convinced that a trial would result in an even harsher punishment. If he'd been misled, he should be able to sue.

One must wonder: Just how many innocents do we have among the 2 million plus prisoners in this beacon of freedom?

Something around 5% from what I remember

 

[Paleocon]

I agree it isn't an emotional argument but it has an emotional appeal insofar as it doesn't reward someone for lying. The difference though is that the lie is prompted by government actions - "take this one year plea deal and we'll not load up enough charges to get you put away for the rest of your life if you go to trial and lose"
Lots of people looking at those as alternatives will cut their losses when they would have gone to trial without the plea deal. So in that sense it's coercive and we as a society tend to look at coerced decisions with lots of suspicion and often invalidate them outright.

Which is why I oppose the legality of inter-charge plea bargaining, and of course if a guilty plea is proven to be false, the person should be released.

But that doesn't change the point that people shouldn't get rewarded for doing wrong.

Irrelevant, because the defendant would be making a decision based on what the worst possible outcome might be, not whether or not he's guilty.

In which he case he is doing evil, and should not be rewarded for it.

You're wearing that mantra as your coat of armor, but it just isn't going to fly. The defendant in his situation essentially has no leverage. If you were in their position: five years for a crime you didn't commit vs fifty years if you take it trial, you yourself would not find that an easy choice to make. One choice lets you still have a life to live, the other may remove that life entirely.

There is only one choice. Refuse to tell a lie to the court. Naturally whether I or anyone else would have the moral fortitude to hold up in such a case is entirely irrelevant to the morality of it.

The only reason one would plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit would be if he were convinced that a trial would result in an even harsher punishment. If he'd been misled, he should be able to sue.

One must wonder: Just how many innocents do we have among the 2 million plus prisoners in this beacon of freedom?

He wasn't misled about the fact he was affirming in the guilty plea, namely that he is guilty. A guilty plea says "I am guilty", not "there is a lot of evidence against me". So he is in fact fully aware that what he is saying is false.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Why should they be fired when they are doing something that is legally permitted and has a track record of making their work easier?

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.

If you think you're going to be railroaded and spend the rest of your life in prison it looks awfully attractive to take less time.

 

[Cardinal]

There is only one choice. Refuse to tell a lie to the court. Naturally whether I or anyone else would have the moral fortitude to hold up in such a case is entirely irrelevant to the morality of it.

97% of the people offered the choice took the plea deal, so internet tough guy act aside, I don't think you'd find it anywhere so easy if you were faced with that choice.

 

[Cardinal]

Why should they be fired when they are doing something that is legally permitted and has a track record of making their work easier?



If you think you're going to be railroaded and spend the rest of your life in prison it looks awfully attractive to take less time.

97% of the people faced with that choice agree.

 

[Paleocon]

Why should they be fired when they are doing something that is legally permitted and has a track record of making their work easier?

Lying to suspects about the evidence against them should not be permitted. And in any case is grossly immoral.

If you think you're going to be railroaded and spend the rest of your life in prison it looks awfully attractive to take less time.

Which is irrelevant. It is always and everywhere wrong to lie.

97% of the people offered the choice took the plea deal, so internet tough guy act aside, I don't think you'd find it anywhere so easy if you were faced with that choice.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything. Do you have anything to say that doesn't amount to an ad hominem or an ad populum?

 

[Cardinal]

Lying to suspects about the evidence against them should not be permitted. And in any case is grossly immoral.



Which is irrelevant. It is always and everywhere wrong to lie.



Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything. Do you have anything to say that doesn't amount to an ad hominem or an ad populum?

I assume, based on what you've said, that you believe that if you were presented with the lesser plea deal or the possibility of the much, much larger sentence, you'd choose the latter. Considering the mind blowing 97% figure, I don't accept that this would be a simple decision for you. I don't know, maybe you can afford that expensive lawyer so that when you go to trial you're actually represented competently.

 

[reinoe]

that is why you plead not guilty and have your day in court.

To hell with that. Prosecutors, police, and even judges have been caught flat out manipulating evidence to get or justify convictions AND faced no repercussions to stop it. This whole "get your day in court" through a fair trial is a fairytale.

 

[Dittohead not!]

To hell with that. Prosecutors, police, and even judges have been caught flat out manipulating evidence to get or justify convictions AND faced no repercussions to stop it. This whole "get your day in court" through a fair trial is a fairytale.

If you have enough money, you can buy that fairy tale.

 

[Paleocon]

I assume, based on what you've said, that you believe that if you were presented with the lesser plea deal or the possibility of the much, much larger sentence, you'd choose the latter. Considering the mind blowing 97% figure, I don't accept that this would be a simple decision for you. I don't know, maybe you can afford that expensive lawyer so that when you go to trial you're actually represented competently.

Do you have anything to say that doesn't amount to an ad hominem or an ad populum?

 

[Cardinal]

Do you have anything to say that doesn't amount to an ad hominem or an ad populum?

Report me if you feel I've violated a forum rule. Do you have anything to say which actually addresses the reality of the situation as well as your claim that it can be almost certain that those given guilty verdicts are, in fact, guilty?

 

[Gaius46]

that is why you plead not guilty and have your day in court.

After taking out a second mortgage on your house to pay for lawyers with no guarantee that you'll actually win. And if you lose and your wife can't pay the note she and your kids are on the street while you get 3 squares and an orange jumpsuit for the next 20 years. The calculus is not nearly as neat as you seem to think it is.

 

[Paleocon]

Report me if you feel I've violated a forum rule. Do you have anything to say which actually addresses the reality of the situation as well as your claim that it can be almost certain that those given guilty verdicts are, in fact, guilty?

Red herring and strawman.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

Not to mention that PDs - at least those in the Nassau County New York - are actually encouraged to just plead people out. The entire criminal justice system is a plea bargain mill. They don't do trials. They process pleas.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

If. Not when. If. Remember the government has unlimited resources. You do not. That puts you at a major league disadvantage right out of the box.

 

[Cardinal]

Red herring and strawman.

So you want to recycle the debate then. You said: "There are very few cases (e.g. negligent homicide) where the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain to the defendant." Based on what I've said about police being able to lie about evidence, to lie about confessions by someone else against you, about the results of lie detector tests, about getting a horrible public defender because competent ones are too expensive, and the choice of five years for a lesser offense versus fifty years if you go to trial, do you still stand by your statement that"the guilt of the defendant is anything but absolutely certain"?

 

[Cardinal]

If. Not when. If. Remember the government has unlimited resources. You do not. That puts you at a major league disadvantage right out of the box.

Yup, I said that too. There's a lot of people to get through on his docket, and he doesn't have the time to go to trial with every one of them.

 

[Gaius46]

Which is irrelevant. It is always and everywhere wrong to lie.

Which is the greater evil? The lie that saves you 20 years in jail or going behind bars and leaving your family destitute?

 

[ludin]

To hell with that. Prosecutors, police, and even judges have been caught flat out manipulating evidence to get or justify convictions AND faced no repercussions to stop it. This whole "get your day in court" through a fair trial is a fairytale.

and the ones that get caught end up going to jail. evidence tampering is a crime.
withholding evidence is a crime as well.

if your defense lawyer can't read an evidence chart then you have issues.

 

[ludin]

Which is the greater evil? The lie that saves you 20 years in jail or going behind bars and leaving your family destitute?

both leave them destitute.

 

[ludin]

If. Not when. If. Remember the government has unlimited resources. You do not. That puts you at a major league disadvantage right out of the box.

the state government does not have unlimited money. if you are talking about a federal case then that is a different story.

 

[Gaius46]

both leave them destitute.

I'd suggest you can financially recover from a year or two in jail. 20 years, not so much, especially if you're also in hock up to your eyeballs for the attorney fees.