Amen. As an genuinely innocent person who just plead to 5 years probation with time served after finding out his options were appeal ineffective council while sitting in prison starting the subsequence week on 10 years no parole in protective custody or accept the plea in the next ten minutes per judicial order (not even prosecutor order), well I can tell you the effective torture leading to a duressed confession even in open court is real when you got a bad judge who is working with both counsels to railroad you for a reelection campaign of the prosecutors boss and judges friend in a big town.
Appeals aren't real when you have to file them from prison and they write the pleas do you can't appeal them either. The system is a joke.
What we really need, since the plea isn't going anywhere, is to legislate away the trial penalty or formalize it as something like "max twice the plea offer" as well as remove all language preventing appealing the plea.
Yes I'm in a bit of shock right now, this post hit so close to home giving the timing.
There's also the mental torture of the extended criminal investigation and trial process; frequently years long, and one that multiple people have described to me (both victims and accused) as being worse than the original crime (in the case of victims) or the supposed punishment (in that of those accused). Exposing victims to torture takes things further even than the medieval Chinese. And I find it difficult to explain, or justify.
It serves to dissuade people from putting themselves in risky situations, I suppose. Maybe it also slakes the thirst to hurt and control people that motivates some to seek employment as police officers, prosecutors or judges - and which changes in the judicial process have made difficult to quench in more old fashioned ways. Sadism will find a way.
Traditional western societies have an additional perverse incentive in that if you die immediately after repentance you have a better chance of going to heaven. Justice systems have always been the primary manufacturers of criminals, whether it's in terms of who is punished or who is not punished. Similar dynamics exist around the right to remain silent, which is more likely to be exercised by someone savvy than someone naive and innocent. The amount of information you get from an innocent person will tend to exceed that you get from a guilty one, and from there it's just a matter of hallucination, confusion, or malice to punish the innocent.
In Florida, in a domestic violence case, the offender is immediately jailed. Then the woman gets to decide if the offender is to be released. Since often, charges are dropped…
Today the process is the torture AND the penalty, all rolled up in one big ball. It would help if we repealed about 90% of the current criminal laws. And prohibit the 'stacking' of multiple charges to use as leverage to force a plea.
> That raises an obvious question: If they saw the problem with torture, why did they continue to employ it?
I suspect the answer is that restructuring their system to not require torture would have required them to punish defendants who hadn't confessed, and that would be unjust.
Mentioning torture during investigation and trial, but not as a punishment?
Legal systems other than ours, right now, include Singapore, famous for flogging minor convicted offenders. Arguably, a flogging is more equitable than prison, or fines. A high-wage earning shoplifter imprisoned for a few years loses a lot more than a hobo, who might actually find prison an improvement in circumstances. A high-wage earning offender can pay the fine more easily than the hobo, but both suffer equally from nine lashes. There are obviously refinements to the basic concept, but at present US prisons are rife with physical abuse from both sadistic guards AND other prisoners. Maybe having a professional flogger with good control over his instrument of torture putting the felons back into society a week later... maybe torture is better?
The real problem seems to me to be when to stop? The guy gave you a place where the loot is hidden, turns out it was false. Did he know the real one, it didn't he?
Torture him again, get another one, false. Again? When to stop? If it's a set and known number, it's a matter of giving out three fake answers in quick succession.
So, the real problem with torture seems to be, when to stop?
That being said there may yet be a use-case: torture them to death and check the info they gave you after: you can clear their name or declare them the culprit post mortem.
Amen. As an genuinely innocent person who just plead to 5 years probation with time served after finding out his options were appeal ineffective council while sitting in prison starting the subsequence week on 10 years no parole in protective custody or accept the plea in the next ten minutes per judicial order (not even prosecutor order), well I can tell you the effective torture leading to a duressed confession even in open court is real when you got a bad judge who is working with both counsels to railroad you for a reelection campaign of the prosecutors boss and judges friend in a big town.
Appeals aren't real when you have to file them from prison and they write the pleas do you can't appeal them either. The system is a joke.
What we really need, since the plea isn't going anywhere, is to legislate away the trial penalty or formalize it as something like "max twice the plea offer" as well as remove all language preventing appealing the plea.
Yes I'm in a bit of shock right now, this post hit so close to home giving the timing.
There's also the mental torture of the extended criminal investigation and trial process; frequently years long, and one that multiple people have described to me (both victims and accused) as being worse than the original crime (in the case of victims) or the supposed punishment (in that of those accused). Exposing victims to torture takes things further even than the medieval Chinese. And I find it difficult to explain, or justify.
It serves to dissuade people from putting themselves in risky situations, I suppose. Maybe it also slakes the thirst to hurt and control people that motivates some to seek employment as police officers, prosecutors or judges - and which changes in the judicial process have made difficult to quench in more old fashioned ways. Sadism will find a way.
Traditional western societies have an additional perverse incentive in that if you die immediately after repentance you have a better chance of going to heaven. Justice systems have always been the primary manufacturers of criminals, whether it's in terms of who is punished or who is not punished. Similar dynamics exist around the right to remain silent, which is more likely to be exercised by someone savvy than someone naive and innocent. The amount of information you get from an innocent person will tend to exceed that you get from a guilty one, and from there it's just a matter of hallucination, confusion, or malice to punish the innocent.
In Florida, in a domestic violence case, the offender is immediately jailed. Then the woman gets to decide if the offender is to be released. Since often, charges are dropped…
what is the chinese book with the wise judges?
Once again, I find myself grateful to live in this time and this country.
Today the process is the torture AND the penalty, all rolled up in one big ball. It would help if we repealed about 90% of the current criminal laws. And prohibit the 'stacking' of multiple charges to use as leverage to force a plea.
> That raises an obvious question: If they saw the problem with torture, why did they continue to employ it?
I suspect the answer is that restructuring their system to not require torture would have required them to punish defendants who hadn't confessed, and that would be unjust.
Mentioning torture during investigation and trial, but not as a punishment?
Legal systems other than ours, right now, include Singapore, famous for flogging minor convicted offenders. Arguably, a flogging is more equitable than prison, or fines. A high-wage earning shoplifter imprisoned for a few years loses a lot more than a hobo, who might actually find prison an improvement in circumstances. A high-wage earning offender can pay the fine more easily than the hobo, but both suffer equally from nine lashes. There are obviously refinements to the basic concept, but at present US prisons are rife with physical abuse from both sadistic guards AND other prisoners. Maybe having a professional flogger with good control over his instrument of torture putting the felons back into society a week later... maybe torture is better?
I still don't get it.
The real problem seems to me to be when to stop? The guy gave you a place where the loot is hidden, turns out it was false. Did he know the real one, it didn't he?
Torture him again, get another one, false. Again? When to stop? If it's a set and known number, it's a matter of giving out three fake answers in quick succession.
So, the real problem with torture seems to be, when to stop?
That being said there may yet be a use-case: torture them to death and check the info they gave you after: you can clear their name or declare them the culprit post mortem.