Watching some USA true crime stuff I think lots are innocent and US system is a bit crap actually

[Stoppissingonmyheather]

V bored and been watching various serial killer/piers Morgan killer interviews and I actually think some of the people could actually be innocent and sounds like police have set them up due to laziness/making name for themselves/believing they have the right person and tampering.. Eg: some serial killer with piers denies it all and the cop involved said he admits to being at a market near the murder scene the day we were there and he looked at a van near there.. Yeah and?? Piers says so what do you have? " A serial killer..." Really??? He says he never gave dna samples but they found his dna on every victim maybe true but has anyone actually investigated this? He showed emotion yet is apparantly a psychopath.
Watching bundy and some other thing and the state police forces admit they didn't work together as they wanted to be the ones to catch the prize so information isn't shared between forces (or wasn't then) others saying they don't have resources to investigate fully or advised to plead guilty for lesser sentence or plead not guilty and get death penalty some don't even go to trial and they don't even have to testify it seems very flawed to me and before you say I am obsessed I have never watched these things before but as its lockdown have run out of stuff to watch and its interesting although a bit shocking does anyone else think so?

@ProfessorSlocombe

It's shocking how disjointed the investigation was.

At least the Yorkshire Ripper was caught immediately with no errors in the investigation, eh ?

Maybe we need to be a tad careful in too much comparison ? It is, after all, the thief of joy.

So you can't say something was poor, when it was, because we also have an investigation that was poor?

Strange logic, quite frankly.

@ProfessorSlocombe

It's shocking how disjointed the investigation was.

At least the Yorkshire Ripper was caught immediately with no errors in the investigation, eh ?

Maybe we need to be a tad careful in too much comparison ? It is, after all, the thief of joy.

Who made any such comparison?

The set up in the US - lack of interstate co-operation, multiple police departments and sheriffs departments in the same city etc etc - certainly caused a lot of issues. That’s not to say we don’t have issues here too. The handling of the Manson case was shocking, I don’t know why stating that is controversial.

It's not, @SinkGirl, as far as I'm concerned! I've no idea why an English investigation needs to be mentioned on a thread specially about the American justice system and a case investigated within that same system.

They should start a thread about the English police's investigative prowess if they want to raise issues with it. As it'll be relevant then.

Specifically, not specially.

[quote Stoppissingonmyheather]@Veterinari rude.. I would say fuck off but then I would be as bad as you[/quote]
Yeah. That would be exactly the same as mentioning that your posts are difficult to follow

Yes however us system is run County run or whatever it is rubbish

You really can't draw conclusions about a system that serves over 330 million people from a single TV show conducted by a man who wouldn't know what journalism was if it ran up behind him and bit him in the arse.

Agree 100% @ProfessorSlocombe.

I can’t imagine spending nearly two decades of your life in prison for something you didn’t do. How do you ever come to terms with that?
You could ask the Birmingham Six. Or the Guildford Four, or The Maguire Seven.
The numbers refer to living people sent away for long stretches.

Up to 2005 in the UK, in order to be considered for parole, a prisoner had to sign a document acknowledging he was guilty of the crime for which he was serving his sentence. Continued protestation of innocence and refusal to sign the document meant no parole hearing.

It remains impossible to have a guilty verdict overturned in the UK unless the convict is able to produce strong new evidence or clear proof of a legal error by a judge or the prosecution. This is regardless of whether police fabricated evidence, coached witnesses, suppressed evidence of innocence, etc., for the trial.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission began work in 1997 to look into miscarriages of justice. Its funding has been slashed by successive Conservative governments. Yet it still sends one case for review every eight working days. There is a two year backlog of cases awaiting review at this point.

You could ask the Birmingham Six. Or the Guildford Four, or The Maguire Seven.
The numbers refer to living people sent away for long stretches.

Yes, I’m aware what the numbers refer to, thanks.

Are you always this combative?

I was referring to some of the subjects of the documentaries I had listed / convicted people exonerated the DNA evidence supported by the Innocence Project. People convicted on the basis of highly questionable forensics work, false confessions elicited by police officers and so on. That’s what I was specifically referring to. At no point did I state that this is exclusive to America.

However, the specifics of the US system is open to pretty shocking abuse - the fact that DAs are elected, and whose re-election depends on gaining convictions, for a start is a massive issue. Serial season 3 as I and someone else mentioned is eye opening.

Are you always this combative?
What is wrong with evidence-based argument?

However, the specifics of the US system is open to pretty shocking abuse - the fact that DAs are elected, and whose re-election depends on gaining convictions, for a start is a massive issue.
I would say the opposite.
I would also tone down the wording - 'shocking abuse' is laying it on pretty thick. But heyho.

Elected DAs/prosecutors/state's attorneys are scrutinised closely. Their tenure can be ended by the voters. Their re-election does not depend on conviction rate. There are all sorts of factors that go into their appeal to voters. There are all sorts of factors that go into loss of confidence too.

www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11243056/anita-alvarez-kim-foxx-cook-county-prosecutor
Two state's attorneys who lost re-election bids in Illinois and Ohio counties, and why, here.
Good thing or bad thing?

The article goes on to describe the almost unlimited powers a state's attorney/DA has. Clearly checks and balances in the form of voter scrutiny are a good thing. Local Bar Associations also scrutinise the performance of elected prosecutors (as well as judges, etc) and publish 'report cards' in newspapers ahead of elections.

Prosecutors tend to be broadly responsive to the concerns of county voters, and since turnout for local elections tends to be low, a relatively small bloc of people interested in one particular issue can make a big difference.

The alternative is appointment (or anointment, depending on how you look at it) by bodies composed of politicians, professional legal associations, and other notables. Is this to be life appointment? Or is it to depend on the political party a lawyer belongs to? Or is it to function as a progressive or conservative clique and serve to safeguard the interests of certain privileged cohorts only?

A legal system is only effective if it enjoys the confidence of those it serves.

@mathanxiety

Are you always this combative? What is wrong with evidence-based argument?

However, the specifics of the US system is open to pretty shocking abuse - the fact that DAs are elected, and whose re-election depends on gaining convictions, for a start is a massive issue.
I would say the opposite.
I would also tone down the wording - 'shocking abuse' is laying it on pretty thick. But heyho.

Elected DAs/prosecutors/state's attorneys are scrutinised closely. Their tenure can be ended by the voters. Their re-election does not depend on conviction rate. There are all sorts of factors that go into their appeal to voters. There are all sorts of factors that go into loss of confidence too.

www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11243056/anita-alvarez-kim-foxx-cook-county-prosecutor
Two state's attorneys who lost re-election bids in Illinois and Ohio counties, and why, here.
Good thing or bad thing?

The article goes on to describe the almost unlimited powers a state's attorney/DA has. Clearly checks and balances in the form of voter scrutiny are a good thing. Local Bar Associations also scrutinise the performance of elected prosecutors (as well as judges, etc) and publish 'report cards' in newspapers ahead of elections.

Prosecutors tend to be broadly responsive to the concerns of county voters, and since turnout for local elections tends to be low, a relatively small bloc of people interested in one particular issue can make a big difference.

The alternative is appointment (or anointment, depending on how you look at it) by bodies composed of politicians, professional legal associations, and other notables. Is this to be life appointment? Or is it to depend on the political party a lawyer belongs to? Or is it to function as a progressive or conservative clique and serve to safeguard the interests of certain privileged cohorts only?

A legal system is only effective if it enjoys the confidence of those it serves.

An evidence-based argument about what - my assertion that it must be pretty awful to spend decades in prison when you’ve done nothing wrong? I’m not really sure what you’re arguing against - I didn’t make any comparisons between the US and U.K. legal systems, other posters did. I didn’t claim this is exclusively an American problem. I was referring to specific cases as explained.

No, I don’t think having the general public deciding on the election of prosecutors is generally a positive thing. I’m not sure the general public has a tendency to be objective, especially when sensitive crimes are the issue. I don’t think that voter scrutiny and “checks and balances” are the same thing, and I don’t think that being so reliant on pleasing the general public is a positive thing when it comes to ensuring justice is done.

The “tough on crime” stance required to retain one’s position in many counties is not always effective or the best way to prevent recidivism in my opinion. And yes, shocking abuse is exactly how I would describe some of these cases.

Of course there will always be cases where a better candidate is elected, and that’s great. That’s not the case everywhere though, obviously. In a country with such an issue with race, and concerning attitudes towards women’s legal rights, nearly 80% of prosecutors in America are white men and a hugely disproportionate percentage of prisoners are BAME.

I don’t think that being so reliant on pleasing the general public is a positive thing when it comes to ensuring justice is done.
Pleasing the general public is what democratic systems are all about, when it boils right down.

The “tough on crime” stance required to retain one’s position in many counties is not always effective or the best way to prevent recidivism in my opinion.
Preventing recidivism isn't the focus of any justice system anywhere. Why are you holding America to standards nobody else adheres to?

Your critique of the American system seems to be based on an idea that ruthless prosecutors and police and the voters who elect sheriffs, prosecutors, etc are nothing better than an officially sanctioned mob with pitchforks.

I think British people should watch less trashy TV, quite frankly.

And maybe read a little more.
theappeal.org/politicalreport/illinois-states-attorney-elections-2020-preview/

@mathanxiety I have seen you on another thread arguing the toss about something and accepting nothing anyone says about anything. IF Police sheriffs rangers any other law enforcements in different Counties States and even Towns don't work together and have access to each others information it is no wonder these serial killers rapists murderers gangs etc get away with it for so long. There is clear evidence that they sometimes do t investigate fully for various reasons plea bargaining rather than testifying is sometimes the only option it does not compare to UK at all however that is not to say British justice system isn't flawed of course it is but we are not talking about that are we.

Why are you talking about 'the US justice system' when it seems all you know of it is some interview with Piers Morgan featuring his usual very low standards of journalism?

Sensational programming about serial killers hosted by bottom of the barrel presenters is designed to rile up people who don't have any insight into what is being presented.

The US is not crawling with serial killers rapists murderers gangs etc
And contrary to what Piers Morgan and his friends at Fox Media, Donald Trump, et al want you to believe, these mythical hordes of miscreants do not get away with it for so long.

@mathanxiety ha ha ha I mentioned 1 piers Morgan programme amongst a load of others that have nothing to do with him. His narrative was the man is a dangerous psycho serial killer jailed for 50 years for 30 murders or something at no point did he insinuate he was innocent quite the opposite actually but presented with details of his arrest etc it is yet it makes you wonder and think if this could be yet another bit of lazy policing. I am not going to be drawn into an argument because that is clearly the only reason you are on here and clearly have no idea what we are talking about and clearly have no idea about the huge gang pronlems in USA no idea about how many mass shootings, murdererers rapists and yes serial killers have been executed or are on death Row or serving life sentences nor do you have any idea I never watch fox I can't stand piers Morgan or trump you have no Idea about any of these things so no need for any more discussion

All those shows about serial killers, etc are the reason politicians and hate mongerers with a right wing political agenda get elected. They are watched by people of a certain age, with a low to average standard of education, and certain political leanings. In the US you can tell the target audience by the type of ads that are shown during the shows.

I am not going to be drawn into an argument because that is clearly the only reason you are on here and clearly have no idea what we are talking about and clearly have no idea about the huge gang pronlems in USA no idea about how many mass shootings, murdererers rapists and yes serial killers have been executed or are on death Row or serving life sentences nor do you have any idea I never watch fox I can't stand piers Morgan or trump you have no Idea about any of these things so no need for any more discussion

LOL

I live in the US.
I live 15 minutes on foot from a certain neighbourhood of a city in the top five population wise, which has one of the top annual murder rates. The neighbourhood contributes significantly to the sity statistics. It is gang infested, full of prostitutes working in broad daylight, drug deals on every corner, liquor stores are the only places you can buy groceries, big groups of people out and about all night long. I drive through it to work and home again.

I keep up with the news. I generally watch PBS. It's actual news.

Lol

What's that lol for?

[quote Stoppissingonmyheather]@mathanxiety ha ha ha I mentioned 1 piers Morgan programme amongst a load of others that have nothing to do with him. His narrative was the man is a dangerous psycho serial killer jailed for 50 years for 30 murders or something at no point did he insinuate he was innocent quite the opposite actually but presented with details of his arrest etc it is yet it makes you wonder and think if this could be yet another bit of lazy policing. I am not going to be drawn into an argument because that is clearly the only reason you are on here and clearly have no idea what we are talking about and clearly have no idea about the huge gang pronlems in USA no idea about how many mass shootings, murdererers rapists and yes serial killers have been executed or are on death Row or serving life sentences nor do you have any idea I never watch fox I can't stand piers Morgan or trump you have no Idea about any of these things so no need for any more discussion[/quote]
Why start a discussion thread if you don't want a discussion?

Or did you just want people to agree with you and your assumptions? Rather than actually discuss and learn anything?

Guess you learned everything you need from one TV show eh?

[quote mathanxiety]I don’t think that being so reliant on pleasing the general public is a positive thing when it comes to ensuring justice is done.
Pleasing the general public is what democratic systems are all about, when it boils right down.

The “tough on crime” stance required to retain one’s position in many counties is not always effective or the best way to prevent recidivism in my opinion.
Preventing recidivism isn't the focus of any justice system anywhere. Why are you holding America to standards nobody else adheres to?

Your critique of the American system seems to be based on an idea that ruthless prosecutors and police and the voters who elect sheriffs, prosecutors, etc are nothing better than an officially sanctioned mob with pitchforks.

I think British people should watch less trashy TV, quite frankly.

And maybe read a little more.
theappeal.org/politicalreport/illinois-states-attorney-elections-2020-preview/[/quote]
I have read plenty, thanks. I haven’t formed my views from “trashy TV”. Funnily enough, despite the fact that you’ve produced a couple of links to back up your position, not everyone agrees. No other country has a similar set up in terms of electing prosecutors and giving them such significant power. Please point me to the evidence that this difference is a positive thing, for the justice system or for the defendants, or for the country as a whole.

knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2019/if-it-pleases-prosecution

Rehabilitation is a stated aim of many justice systems. Obviously recidivism is an element of whether someone could be considered rehabilitated, and there are justice systems where preventing recidivism is a priority. I am not holding the US to a higher standard than elsewhere. I’m questioning the impact of their justice system on the recidivism rate, which is high.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/#!po=0.438596

You’re certainly putting a lot of words in my mouth, none of which I have said.

I am certainly not the first person to question the question a system which elects prosecutors, and I note you’ve entirely ignored the important point of race and sex. As I mentioned, almost 80% are white men, over 92% white generally. Given what we know about racial and sex bias is recruitment and elections, this is an issue.

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/american-prosecutors-are-incredible-whitedoes-it-matter/397847/

Neither have I been so incredibly rude to you, and I’m not sure why such rudeness is warranted.

Well there's an enormous amount of racism and classism in America which corrupts and twists their legal system.

I mean they were still lynching people in the 1960s (and arguably today though more quietly).

I think the justice system in the us is terrible but the truth is that even in the best, least corrupt justice systems in the world, the police's job is to get a conviction , not to get to the truth of a matter

I often hear the question asked of defenders " how can you defend someone you pretty much know is guilty?"

I almost never hear a similar question asked of prosecutors which is " How can you prosecute someone you are pretty sure is innocent?" I'd say the latter happens almost as often as the former.

Most justice systems are blunt instruments designed for show. They rarely provide reasonable justice at an individual.level and lawyers understand this. It is a game and yes many criminals play the game but a significant proportion of people caught up in that game are not really criminals.

I learned everything I need to know about monarchy from the tv show “the crown” lol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service

I think you'll agree that over 92% of DPPs so far have been white.

It should be noted that the Crown Prosecution Service only became operational in 1986. Previously, police prosecutors handled prosecutions, with the creation of the CPS intended to remedy the very obvious potential for miscarriage of justice inherent in that cozy little arrangement.

More cozy arrangements here:
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/senior-judges-most-socially-exclusive-of-all-professionals/5070720.article
This is extraordinary in a country which prides itself on its diversity.

So is this:
www.lse.ac.uk/united-states/Assets/Documents/The-Colour-of-Injustice.pdf

And of course the CPS only deals with England and Wales. Scotland and NI each have their own prosecution services. This has to have an effect on communication.