Comment on If a criminal says a cop planted drugs or whatever on them why don't they ask for a finger print test? And vice versa a cop could also request it to clear up everything?

• 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.

  source

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    many police programs incentivize or measure an officers efficiency based on the number of arrests or tickets they produce.

    I call that very unethical.

    source

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Me too.

      source
  • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • 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.

      source

      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The role they play on the court is bad, and shouldn’t exist. A criminal court shouldn’t be “the State against X”, it should be X defending themselves, and the State looking for what really happened. Nobody should be “against X”. The State goes against specific people in kangaroo courts, not real ones.

        And yeah, names don’t always matter. But on this case they seem to reflect the reality almost perfectly.

        On “District Attorney”, they don’t defend the district on courts. But this one name seems to not matter.

        Also, honestly, I don’t know how your rules for confession aren’t constantly questioned on international courts for violating human rights. You can’t just take a defendant’s word that they did it.

        Anyway, none of that is “corruption” exactly. It’s a different problem. Don’t expect the remedies that exist for corruption to work with it.

        source
• ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This site says:

  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.

  source

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    This site

    Some random lawyer.

    like German police can and will use your words against you in court.

    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.

    source

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        All courts work the same.

        They don’t. And the way the US courts work is almost exclusive to them.

        source
      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        It’s actually British courts who are special. And unfortunately Britain has exported their way into all their colonies.

        In the British view of the world, it is generally assumed that everybody is lying all the time, even in court. All evidence and all words of witnesses are assumed to belong to one of the parties = lying in their favor (If you don’t like the term “lying” here, you can replace it by “performing a good show”).

        In Germany, witnesses belong to nobody (except if they are are involved, or if they are spouse/relatives to one of the people who are involved etc.) and therefore it is generally assumed that they are free to tell the truth.

        source
      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Not true. In Japan you are often guilty until proven innocent—they can hold you for almost a month for an accusation alone.

        source