Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
You said you weren't interested in discussing methods of coersion, but one needs to toughed upon, a lighter sentence for testimony agaist other defendants.
I think the main point is that anybody can lie, I would. If I were captured by my enemies I would do my best to spin my story and make it believable as possible. Send them on a wild goose chase.
Something like that happened in Mansfield Ohio recently. Twenty something people were convicted on evidence from a snitch who was proven to be lying. Most have now been released, even those who copped a plea, that usually does not happen. But they sat in prison for two and a half years and when that happens to the innocent, it is a big black eye for them. Do you think they will be more careful in the future ? I doubt it.
And if the snitch was given immunity from prosecution for his testimony, does that include the twenty some odd instances of perjury ? I certainly hope not. Those people spent 2½ years for nothing, have you ever been in jail ? It is one thing to get used to the joint, but it is quite another when you come out and you obviously have no car, no credit, noplace to go. Think you'll get your old job back ? I think the prosecutors in those cases should be sentenced to the same amount of time in prison that they sent these innocents up the river for.
What motivation could this snitch have to send innocent people to jail ? Perhaps he really does know the guilty people ? I think this a strong possibility.
In any criminal operation worth a shit, nobody talks, and if they talk they lie. If they tell the truth, that is to roll over on someone else, they are abandoned and will have a hard time doing time. If they don't roll they are taken care of. They got friends, possibly some of them guards before they even get deloused.
So would they lie ? Hell yes. YOU can trust me completely, but THEY can't.
I am not a member of a criminal organization, unless you count mine (joking). But the fact is I actually did pay someone to do something for me and they got caught. He was provided with enough deniability to avoid going to jail and I paid his fine. If he had gone to jail he would automatically have money in the commisary and books or whatever, and his olady would be taken care of for the duration.
This was a minor offense, and I'm sure he could've gotten off scot free if he would give them my name. But he didn't. He could've fucked me over, got me thrown in jail, come out smelling like a rose and then sue me in civil court, but he didn't.
This was a while back, and I mention it as a tertiary issue. But to meander back to the OT, I would not trust coerced evidence.
However, if I were to lean on someone to find out where something is, like something stolen from me, it is a simple matter to go see if it is where they said it was. If it is not, I do not know that they lied, someone might have found it, or someone else may have known where it is and taken it. It's preferable to offer other incentives.
There have been things stolen from me that I would pay to get back. It may seem stupid to pay for something twice, but it may be more effective than duress. In one case it was a shotgun that was over 100 years old. It would be worth the money to have that back, and anybody other than the government applying duress could have serious legal ramifications.
So, the answer in the end is this, I would not trust coerced information. This is because I know what I would do. If captured I would lie my ass off. And the guy in Mansfield, he did not get to be a snitch by going to the Ohio Academy Of Snitching, his ass was in a sling at one time, guaranteed.
In this country, telling a suspect that he does twenty years if he doesn't talk, but two years if he does is not officially called duress. But give it a try, what would you do ? What is more coercive, having a rag tied around your face and someone dowsing it with water, or the loss of eighteen years of your life ?
I would not trust information gained this way to convict, only to further the investigation. Forcing someone who is your enemy to help hurt their friends is not all that sure fire. Some prosecutors do that, but I don't think the smart ones do.
Prosecutors are rated on how many convictions they get, but if the convictions get overturned later, there goes their score, and a chunk of their credibility. Judges think about this. They do, one of the crappiest thing to happen to a judge is to have their decision overturned by a higher court. If people would think ahead, we would see less of this.
I will be quite interested in seeing how they handle damage control in the Mansfield case. That prosecutor knew better, and I think he shall be falling on his sword so to speak. There are about 27 people out there who have every right to gripe loudly. In fact they are being watched for signs of some possible street justice being administered, although I don't know why. The informant gave them all a black eye and if I were running Mansfield I would be very tempted to just let the chips fall where they may.
Why that Mansfield case has any bearing to the OT is, just what were his motivations ? Did they just pay him so much per conviction or something ? Or did he change the names, screwing the innocent to protect guilty friends ?
Too many questions, and too many wrong answers.
T
|
reliable evidence - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread