Which is the greater crime?

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
I'd rather let a guilty man go than convict an innocent. I used to be super-pro death penalty. I've changed my mind as I no longer trust my government to properly apply the punishment. I am also pro gun rights so I can protect myself if this released guilty man breaks into my home to do my harm.

A question: are there things we could do to make it more likely to convict the truly guilty without penalizing society?
I'd think ending in the US something called, the Exclusionary Rule might be such a help. Ann Coulter likens it to shooting someone in the audience dead as the opera singer coughed while singing.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
A question: are there things we could do to make it more likely to convict the truly guilty without penalizing society?
I'd think ending in the US something called, the Exclusionary Rule might be such a help. Ann Coulter likens it to shooting someone in the audience dead as the opera singer coughed while singing.
If you don't trust the government, why do you want the government to not have any rules in "finding"/ manufacturing evidence?

I don't trust 2nd amendment people that want to shred the rest of the constitution
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
If you don't trust the government, why do you want the government to not have any rules in "finding"/ manufacturing evidence?

I don't trust 2nd amendment people that want to shred the rest of the constitution
First, when you want to end something hallucinated into law by activist judges, ending it is not shredding the constitution.

More importantly: in what way does the exclusionary rule protect innocent people more than guilty people?

EDIT:
Innocent: cops break down door. You're innocent, they find nothing. Exclusionary rule does not help.
Guilty: cops find shit. Maybe you can beat it or not. The rule may help you.
Innocent: cops frame you. If they do it right, rule won't help you. If wrong, you still are not better off than the guilty who...
Guilty: cops frame you. If they do it wrong, it helps you.

I just don't see any scenario where the rule helps the innocent over the guilty.

Or the foolish, or people who disagree with the law or simply think it doesn't apply to them.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
First, when you want to end something hallucinated into law by activist judges, ending it is not shredding the constitution.

More importantly: in what way does the exclusionary rule protect innocent people more than guilty people?

EDIT:
Innocent: cops break down door. You're innocent, they find nothing. Exclusionary rule does not help.
Guilty: cops find shit. Maybe you can beat it or not. The rule may help you.
Innocent: cops frame you. If they do it right, rule won't help you. If wrong, you still are not better off than the guilty who...
Guilty: cops frame you. If they do it wrong, it helps you.

I just don't see any scenario where the rule helps the innocent over the guilty.
"Hallucinated into law"? It's literally the 4th Amendment protection against unwarranted search and seizure, the 5th Amendment protection against having to incriminate yourself, and the 6th Amendment right to counsel. Aspects of this rule were based on English law older than this country.

EDIT: I mean, shit man: civil forfeiture already steals more shit than non-white collar crime in this country, do you really want the only defense against that to be "shoot a cop"?

gorf, just look at when Ann Coulter reacts to her friends/backers getting raided by the FBI, who came with warrants, to see how she actually feels about this rule. She only wants it gone so cops can harass The Bad People.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
"Hallucinated into law"? It's literally the 4th Amendment protection against unwarranted search and seizure, the 5th Amendment protection against having to incriminate yourself, and the 6th Amendment right to counsel. Aspects of this rule were based on English law older than this country.

EDIT: I mean, shit man: civil forfeiture already steals more shit than non-white collar crime in this country, do you really want the only defense against that to be "shoot a cop"?

gorf, just look at when Ann Coulter reacts to her friends/backers getting raided by the FBI, who came with warrants, to see how she actually feels about this rule. She only wants it gone so cops can harass The Bad People.
Will watch the video... saw the start and it is interesting.
But you're only sort of right about 4,5 and 6. 4 is a bar against unreasonable search and seizure. There is NO call for the exclusionary rule if violated. That is a solution offered by the court they made up and it does not work to protect innocent people. Cops can still harass. Innocents can still be framed.
And to have a functioning government, we do need them to do some interpretation. IE, the 1st bars infringement on speech. Doesn't say what the government can do to you after you have your un-infringed moment to say/write something that offends them. So, the court has held such punishments un-Constitutional. Same with fruit gained from 4th violation.
But they failed. It does not protect the innocent.
My idea? Cops should be liable for knowing violation of law and abuse of power. That happens some time but not enough. Cops have limited liability. It should not include the willful abuse of power.
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
374
68
Country
United States
Wrongfully convicting someone innocent. This is not even close to hard for me.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
Will watch the video... saw the start and it is interesting.
But you're only sort of right about 4,5 and 6. 4 is a bar against unreasonable search and seizure. There is NO call for the exclusionary rule if violated. That is a solution offered by the court they made up and it does not work to protect innocent people. Cops can still harass. Innocents can still be framed.
And to have a functioning government, we do need them to do some interpretation. IE, the 1st bars infringement on speech. Doesn't say what the government can do to you after you have your un-infringed moment to say/write something that offends them. So, the court has held such punishments un-Constitutional. Same with fruit gained from 4th violation.
But they failed. It does not protect the innocent.
My idea? Cops should be liable for knowing violation of law and abuse of power. That happens some time but not enough. Cops have limited liability. It should not include the willful abuse of power.
If you don't actually punish people in the government for violating people's 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights, there is no incentive for them to not do that. There's no real repercussions for the government blatantly violating the constitution except for the inability to use the information obtained in criminal trials.

I mean, sure, the cops and feds broke into random innocent people's houses at 3am, shot their dog, put you in handcuffs for 3 hours while they tore your house apart, and won't even pay for the broken door when they left, but one time they caught somebody with weed, so...

We already know how this turns out. It's Stop and Frisk. At the end of the day, if "criminals" don't get rights, then the authorities get to do whatever they want by branding anybody they don't like as "criminals". It wasn't too long ago that owning a butt plug made you a criminal
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
If you don't actually punish people in the government for violating people's 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights, there is no incentive for them to not do that. There's no real repercussions for the government blatantly violating the constitution except for the inability to use the information obtained in criminal trials.

I mean, sure, the cops and feds broke into random innocent people's houses at 3am, shot their dog, put you in handcuffs for 3 hours while they tore your house apart, and won't even pay for the broken door when they left, but one time they caught somebody with weed, so...

We already know how this turns out. It's Stop and Frisk. At the end of the day, if "criminals" don't get rights, then the authorities get to do whatever they want by branding anybody they don't like as "criminals". It wasn't too long ago that owning a butt plug made you a criminal
As I wrote, the abuse of power is the problem and they need to punish the actual cop that does this. Catching him is another issue.
You have the exclusionary rule, yet stop and frisk is still a thing.
Cop wants to break down your door at 3 AM, if he's knowledgeable enough he'll ensure it is done in a manner that will appear lawful. So, the innocent guy is in just as much trouble as the guilty, especially if the cop does some, "drop-see" evidence.
Your video was very interesting and compelling. Thank you for sharing.
I do think the right is for civil disobedience and the left for law enforcement at times and vice versa. "Just obey the law" can be way too simplistic.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
As I wrote, the abuse of power is the problem and they need to punish the actual cop that does this. Catching him is another issue.
You have the exclusionary rule, yet stop and frisk is still a thing.
Cop wants to break down your door at 3 AM, if he's knowledgeable enough he'll ensure it is done in a manner that will appear lawful. So, the innocent guy is in just as much trouble as the guilty, especially if the cop does some, "drop-see" evidence.
Your video was very interesting and compelling. Thank you for sharing.
I do think the right is for civil disobedience and the left for law enforcement at times and vice versa. "Just obey the law" can be way too simplistic.
"If he's knowledgeable enough" if doing an amazing amount of lifting. Without the 4th amendment and the exclusionary rule, all a cop has to say is "I heard from an informant, it didn't pan out".

Now, with the exclusionary rule in effect, said cop has to convince a judge that his information is legit if he doesn't want to get fired for *blatantly* violating somebody's rights. Which, as you correctly point out, is not a defense from the cop being an asshole and not getting punished for violating people's 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights.

Ending the exclusionary rule *before* the serious reformation of policing and fixing just how much immunity the state has from hurting its people is putting the cart before the horse.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
"If he's knowledgeable enough" if doing an amazing amount of lifting. Without the 4th amendment and the exclusionary rule, all a cop has to say is "I heard from an informant, it didn't pan out".

Now, with the exclusionary rule in effect, said cop has to convince a judge that his information is legit if he doesn't want to get fired for *blatantly* violating somebody's rights. Which, as you correctly point out, is not a defense from the cop being an asshole and not getting punished for violating people's 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights.

Ending the exclusionary rule *before* the serious reformation of policing and fixing just how much immunity the state has from hurting its people is putting the cart before the horse.
You've given an example of what a bad cop might do, and I think, even with the exclusionary rule, that still happens. But a cop could go without a warrant, bust down your door claiming he heard something that alarmed him (struggle, screams), smelled what appeared to be an illegal substance and more.
I understand countries like Germany have no such rule yet have not devolved into an authoritarian police state. Yet.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,905
118
To wrongfully convict an innocent person or to allow a guilty one to walk free?
First one is way worse. Even the guilty were free before being convicted anyways, but to deny freedom and subject an innocent to a possible lifetime of pain and suffering is unforgivable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,210
4,482
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
First one is way worse. Even the guilty were free before being convicted anyways, but to deny freedom and subject an innocent to a possible lifetime of pain and suffering is unforgivable.
I'm not even sure why this is at issue.

A crime was committed.

One person did it.

The other did not.

The other goes to jail for aforementioned crime.

So in that scenario of three primary aspects, starting at 0, a crime has been done (-1), the perpetrator is free (-1) and an innocent is in jail (-1). Net -3. Best case: a crime has been done (-1), the perpetrator is jailed (+1) and any innocent person is free (+1). Net +1. Simple maths. There's really no argument that the imprisonment of innocent people could be less damning of a system of justice than the guilty going free.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
You've given an example of what a bad cop might do, and I think, even with the exclusionary rule, that still happens. But a cop could go without a warrant, bust down your door claiming he heard something that alarmed him (struggle, screams), smelled what appeared to be an illegal substance and more.
And then you can sue the pants off of the departmen for violating your constitutional rights, regardless of whether or not they found your weed stash. Seriously, bad cops already do that shit and you want to make it easier to get away with why? Fix the cops first, then we can talk about the exclusionary rule. Though, again, I don't trust anybody who supports the 2nd amendment without supporting the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. That's a police state waiting to happen.
I understand countries like Germany have no such rule yet have not devolved into an authoritarian police state. Yet.
German police are very different from USA police in many respects. Regardless, Germany is eyeing our exclusionary rules more favorably because having the police raid whomever they want on fishing expeditions tend to erode respect for the rule of law. At the very least, German police aren't allowed to lie during interrogations, something American police are expli allowed to do and do so so often that my friend, a county prosecutor who works exclusively with police on the police's side tells people to never talk to cops without a lawyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
And then you can sue the pants off of the departmen for violating your constitutional rights, regardless of whether or not they found your weed stash. Seriously, bad cops already do that shit and you want to make it easier to get away with why? Fix the cops first, then we can talk about the exclusionary rule. Though, again, I don't trust anybody who supports the 2nd amendment without supporting the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. That's a police state waiting to happen.
Sue the pants off the police. That can be done without the exclusionary rule (unless the police plant "look see" evidence" or the party being investigated is in fact guilty: EDIT: I think if the intrussion is found justified, a suit won't help.). My point is, the exclusionary rule provides no added protection to the innocent and is not a curb on police abuse.

I support the 4th, 5th and 6th. Just not this court invented remedy to its violation. Sue the pants off is a better, existing, remedy.

German police are very different from USA police in many respects. Regardless, Germany is eyeing our exclusionary rules more favorably because having the police raid whomever they want on fishing expeditions tend to erode respect for the rule of law. At the very least, German police aren't allowed to lie during interrogations, something American police are expli allowed to do and do so so often that my friend, a county prosecutor who works exclusively with police on the police's side tells people to never talk to cops without a lawyer.
Thank you for the link, reviewing.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,302
8,779
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Is it worse to allow a serial rapist/arsonist/killer go because of a error in procedure or to convict someone who has in truth committed no crime?
Anyone who says the first is worse should be entered into a lottery. Any time a crime is committed and the perpetrator is not caught within a certain time period, someone's name will be drawn from that lottery, and that person will serve the sentence.

Then we'll see how they feel about being the innocent person wrongly punished, because you know they have the conceit that it'll never be them so who cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl