• 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!

Third Degree Lite: The Abuse of Confessions

joG said:
The questions surrounding interrogation and the treatment of suspects are interesting. But, where would you like to start the discussion? If the methods used on a citizen are non coercive? What is there to say?
Click to expand...

I would like to begin the discussion with the case Berger v. US, found at 295US78. It is not so much about interrogation of suspects as it is about the goal of our criminal justice system and the role of the courts and their officers.

I suggest that those interrogating suspects should keep in mind that their goal is justice and finding the truth, nothing more.

"The US Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would like to begin the discussion with the case Berger v. US, found at 295US78. It is not so much about interrogation of suspects as it is about the goal of our criminal justice system and the role of the courts and their officers.

I suggest that those interrogating suspects should keep in mind that their goal is justice and finding the truth, nothing more.

"The US Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
Click to expand...
But reality is that DAs get re-elected by good conviction rates. Not lower crime rates, but good conviction rates. Detectives get promoted by solving more cases. How can this all not be an incentive for expediency?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would like to begin the discussion with the case Berger v. US, found at 295US78. It is not so much about interrogation of suspects as it is about the goal of our criminal justice system and the role of the courts and their officers.

I suggest that those interrogating suspects should keep in mind that their goal is justice and finding the truth, nothing more.

"The US Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
Click to expand...

Do you think we have structured the reward systems to improve these goals? And more importantly, are they the goals we want or are they restrictions on behavior employed to achieve other goals?
 
joG said:
Do you think we have structured the reward systems to improve these goals? And more importantly, are they the goals we want or are they restrictions on behavior employed to achieve other goals?
Click to expand...

Good questions, but I'm not sure of the answers.

MY fall back position is that so many of our laws are bad laws, and I use the drug prohibition as an example. Poor laws zealously enforced leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. Asset forfeiture, corruption of the police in so many ways, and then corruption of the prosecutors who enforce these poor laws, and corruption of the juries who convict under these poor laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom