Police have to collect proof, whether it works for or against a suspect. Other suspects are possible, too. That follows directly from the general presumption of innocence. Only the judge can end that presumption, with his verdict.
Police aren’t prosecutors in the US. But they work closely with the district attorneys who do prosecute. As in they provide the evidence to them and provide their recount of the situation and circumstances to the prosecutor and if it goes to trial can be called to testify against you.
Additionally, many police programs incentivize or measure an officers efficiency based on the number of arrests or tickets they produce.
Often since the prosecutors and police work towards the same goal of securing a conviction, we lump them together even though they are different agencies.
The State is there to find and punish the right people, not to go after a random person they selected.
On most countries, the equivalent to a prosecutor will insist that the police works correctly, and will throw away cases if some evidence appear that the suspect is innocent.
It’s actually title is District Attorney. But I court it’s the prosecutor and the defendant.
That’s how it’s supposed to work here. But the position can be political where the DA is elected and to appear “tough on crime” they prosecute even when they should throw out cases.
Most cases don’t even get to a court though. The majority get some sort of plea deal. The whole process is so fucked up, that a non-insignificant number confess even though they are innocent to just be done with the whole ordeal. Defending yourself can bankrupt someone and ruin their mental health.
Our system is rife with corruption and, IMHO it should be a lot harder for police and district attorneys to ruin someone’s life.
One of the most critical measures in the preliminary proceedings is questioning the alleged crime participants and witnesses to what happened. No statement should be made without legal counsel at this stage (especially when the police open up to the suspect to interrogate them as an “accused”). Investigators are trained to ask questions that could put the suspect in a bind and are increasingly success-oriented. This often results in hasty, ill-considered and incriminating statements, which can be used against the accused in the main proceedings.
Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.
What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.
And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?
German courts aren’t special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that’s the same everywhere, but it’s not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it’s specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.
It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can’t be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Police have to collect proof, whether it works for or against a suspect. Other suspects are possible, too. That follows directly from the general presumption of innocence. Only the judge can end that presumption, with his verdict.
(Germany here)
brygphilomena@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Police aren’t prosecutors in the US. But they work closely with the district attorneys who do prosecute. As in they provide the evidence to them and provide their recount of the situation and circumstances to the prosecutor and if it goes to trial can be called to testify against you.
Additionally, many police programs incentivize or measure an officers efficiency based on the number of arrests or tickets they produce.
Often since the prosecutors and police work towards the same goal of securing a conviction, we lump them together even though they are different agencies.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I call that very unethical.
brygphilomena@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Me too.
marcos@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Even that “prosecutor” name is bad.
The State is there to find and punish the right people, not to go after a random person they selected.
On most countries, the equivalent to a prosecutor will insist that the police works correctly, and will throw away cases if some evidence appear that the suspect is innocent.
brygphilomena@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s actually title is District Attorney. But I court it’s the prosecutor and the defendant.
That’s how it’s supposed to work here. But the position can be political where the DA is elected and to appear “tough on crime” they prosecute even when they should throw out cases.
Most cases don’t even get to a court though. The majority get some sort of plea deal. The whole process is so fucked up, that a non-insignificant number confess even though they are innocent to just be done with the whole ordeal. Defending yourself can bankrupt someone and ruin their mental health.
Our system is rife with corruption and, IMHO it should be a lot harder for police and district attorneys to ruin someone’s life.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
This site says:
Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Some random lawyer.
Again: police records and collects stuff. They do not argue in court.
What the accused has told the police will usable by all sides equally in court.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?
German courts aren’t special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that’s the same everywhere, but it’s not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it’s specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.
It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can’t be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.