[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jean
Date: 3/8/01
Time: 11:35:23 AM
Scroll past the junk. ------------------------
Mail message
From: [email protected] Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2001, 10:48am To: [email protected] Subject: [InPursuitofJustice] Great post from alt fan Reply to: [email protected] WHY LAWYERS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO TALK , INNOCENT OR NOT Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Wed, Mar 7, 2001, 5:04pm From: [email protected] (John Junot) ===== Original Message From [email protected] (Thomas P. Jabine) ===== [snip] If you were a policeman or a prosecutor, and a suspect/defendant told you a story that you hadn't anticipated, would you prosecute him anyway in order to save face? the answer is: probably. What would usually happen is that the police/prosecutor would check out your story and, under the belief it was a lie, look for ways to neutralize it. Only if he/she could not find a way to neutralize it would the p/p decide to let you go. I've watched this thread bounce around for quite awhile now. Beaver is actually laying down the turh to a bunch of laymen (i.e. "babes in the woods") but is not being explicit enough about it. Here's the way the "justice" (cough, gag, puke) system really works: Never mind that you get paid a salary, in our society all work is really "piecework". You keep your job and advance by your productivity. For the policeman, productivity is measured in arrests and cases cleared; for a prosecutor, by convictions, AND by severity of sentences dealt out to defendants convicted. That is, for a prosecutor, it's better to get one death sentence against an accused murderer than, say, ten sentences of five years for ten burglars. This also means, that, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF AND WHAT YOU ARE TAUGHT IN CIVICS CLASSES AND TV SHOWS, the questions of "who REALLY did this crime?" and "Was a crime even committed?" are purely secondary, and , as often as not, never enter into the arrest-trial-verdict-sentence process at all. Rather, the real operational questions are, for the cop, "Is there enough probable cause to make an arrest? (and for the DA to file charges)", and, for the prosecutor, "Is there enough evidence against the defendant for me to get a conviction?" and "Would a conviction in this case put enough points on my resume to make it worth my while to bring this to trial?" The real operational question for an arrestee/defendant -- and may you never discover this first hand -- is: "How can I get out of this with the minimum financial cost and disruption to my life?" One of the most shocking things a first time arrestee/defendant -- especially one white, middle class or above, without friends or relatives who have been through the system -- will discover is that no one really gives a damn is he or she is really guilty, and the ones who least give a damn are the cops and prosecutors. Now, this is not to say that the government side of law enforcement are a bunch of evil people who are secretly looking for otally innocent people to screw over. In fact, they themselves think of themselves as the "good guys" and the people they arrest and prsecute as the evil subhumans. Now, at this point, let me say that FOR THE MAJORITY OF CASES the forces of law enforcement are, indeed, right. MOST of the people the cops arrest are guilty of what they are arrested for, MOST of the people brought to trial are guilty, MOST of those convicted deserve their punishment. However, there remains this minority of innocent people caught up in the system by bad luck or bad associations. And I am NOT talking about some kind of "irreducible minimum of mistakes" that is inevitable in any human system. There is, in fact, very little trend in law enforcement to exonerate the guilty before arrest or indictment. On the contrary, the tendency is strongly the other way: naive innocent people are the easiest to arrest, convict, and get long sentences for. Such people will not plea bargain and will go to trial with the weakest of cases, trusting in what they believe to be the innate justice of the "justice" system, and the moral force of their own innocence. Prosecutors love that. Am I again accusing law enforcement of evil intent? No. However, I am saying they are the most susceptible to self-hyponosis. One a prosecutor has decided to indict you for a crime, even a videotape of someone else doing it, and an affadavit from the Pope saying you were in Rome with him at the time, will not change his/her mind. He/she will simply say that you somehow faked that videotape and that the Pope was with someone who looked like you and fooled him. This is why lawyers always advise people to never, never, never talk to the cops or prosecutor without an attorney present: WHEN YOU DO THIS YOU ARE LIKE A GENERAL GIVING HIS BATTLE PLANS TO THE ENEMY. Now, Mr. Beaver, tell the group I'm right, and feel free to print out this essay and give it to your clients. WHY LAWYERS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO TALK , INNOCENT OR NOT Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Wed, Mar 7, 2001, 5:04pm From: [email protected] (John Junot) ===== Original Message From [email protected] (Thomas P. Jabine) ===== [snip] If you were a policeman or a prosecutor, and a suspect/defendant told you a story that you hadn't anticipated, would you prosecute him anyway in order to save face? the answer is: probably. What would usually happen is that the police/prosecutor would check out your story and, under the belief it was a lie, look for ways to neutralize it. Only if he/she could not find a way to neutralize it would the p/p decide to let you go. I've watched this thread bounce around for quite awhile now. Beaver is actually laying down the turh to a bunch of laymen (i.e. "babes in the woods") but is not being explicit enough about it. Here's the way the "justice" (cough, gag, puke) system really works: Never mind that you get paid a salary, in our society all work is really "piecework". You keep your job and advance by your productivity. For the policeman, productivity is measured in arrests and cases cleared; for a prosecutor, by convictions, AND by severity of sentences dealt out to defendants convicted. That is, for a prosecutor, it's better to get one death sentence against an accused murderer than, say, ten sentences of five years for ten burglars. This also means, that, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF AND WHAT YOU ARE TAUGHT IN CIVICS CLASSES AND TV SHOWS, the questions of "who REALLY did this crime?" and "Was a crime even committed?" are purely secondary, and , as often as not, never enter into the arrest-trial-verdict-sentence process at all. Rather, the real operational questions are, for the cop, "Is there enough probable cause to make an arrest? (and for the DA to file charges)", and, for the prosecutor, "Is there enough evidence against the defendant for me to get a conviction?" and "Would a conviction in this case put enough points on my resume to make it worth my while to bring this to trial?" The real operational question for an arrestee/defendant -- and may you never discover this first hand -- is: "How can I get out of this with the minimum financial cost and disruption to my life?" One of the most shocking things a first time arrestee/defendant -- especially one white, middle class or above, without friends or relatives who have been through the system -- will discover is that no one really gives a damn is he or she is really guilty, and the ones who least give a damn are the cops and prosecutors. Now, this is not to say that the government side of law enforcement are a bunch of evil people who are secretly looking for otally innocent people to screw over. In fact, they themselves think of themselves as the "good guys" and the people they arrest and prsecute as the evil subhumans. Now, at this point, let me say that FOR THE MAJORITY OF CASES the forces of law enforcement are, indeed, right. MOST of the people the cops arrest are guilty of what they are arrested for, MOST of the people brought to trial are guilty, MOST of those convicted deserve their punishment. However, there remains this minority of innocent people caught up in the system by bad luck or bad associations. And I am NOT talking about some kind of "irreducible minimum of mistakes" that is inevitable in any human system. There is, in fact, very little trend in law enforcement to exonerate the guilty before arrest or indictment. On the contrary, the tendency is strongly the other way: naive innocent people are the easiest to arrest, convict, and get long sentences for. Such people will not plea bargain and will go to trial with the weakest of cases, trusting in what they believe to be the innate justice of the "justice" system, and the moral force of their own innocence. Prosecutors love that. Am I again accusing law enforcement of evil intent? No. However, I am saying they are the most susceptible to self-hyponosis. One a prosecutor has decided to indict you for a crime, even a videotape of someone else doing it, and an affadavit from the Pope saying you were in Rome with him at the time, will not change his/her mind. He/she will simply say that you somehow faked that videotape and that the Pope was with someone who looked like you and fooled him. This is why lawyers always advise people to never, never, never talk to the cops or prosecutor without an attorney present: WHEN YOU DO THIS YOU ARE LIKE A GENERAL GIVING HIS BATTLE PLANS TO THE ENEMY. Now, Mr. Beaver, tell the group I'm right, and feel free to print out this essay and give it to your clients. Jean On to 2002!!! To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Mail message
From: [email protected] Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2001, 10:48am To: [email protected] Subject: [InPursuitofJustice] Great post from alt fan Reply to: [email protected] WHY LAWYERS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO TALK , INNOCENT OR NOT Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Wed, Mar 7, 2001, 5:04pm From: [email protected] (John Junot) ===== Original Message From [email protected] (Thomas P. Jabine) ===== [snip] If you were a policeman or a prosecutor, and a suspect/defendant told you a story that you hadn't anticipated, would you prosecute him anyway in order to save face? the answer is: probably. What would usually happen is that the police/prosecutor would check out your story and, under the belief it was a lie, look for ways to neutralize it. Only if he/she could not find a way to neutralize it would the p/p decide to let you go. I've watched this thread bounce around for quite awhile now. Beaver is actually laying down the turh to a bunch of laymen (i.e. "babes in the woods") but is not being explicit enough about it. Here's the way the "justice" (cough, gag, puke) system really works: Never mind that you get paid a salary, in our society all work is really "piecework". You keep your job and advance by your productivity. For the policeman, productivity is measured in arrests and cases cleared; for a prosecutor, by convictions, AND by severity of sentences dealt out to defendants convicted. That is, for a prosecutor, it's better to get one death sentence against an accused murderer than, say, ten sentences of five years for ten burglars. This also means, that, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF AND WHAT YOU ARE TAUGHT IN CIVICS CLASSES AND TV SHOWS, the questions of "who REALLY did this crime?" and "Was a crime even committed?" are purely secondary, and , as often as not, never enter into the arrest-trial-verdict-sentence process at all. Rather, the real operational questions are, for the cop, "Is there enough probable cause to make an arrest? (and for the DA to file charges)", and, for the prosecutor, "Is there enough evidence against the defendant for me to get a conviction?" and "Would a conviction in this case put enough points on my resume to make it worth my while to bring this to trial?" The real operational question for an arrestee/defendant -- and may you never discover this first hand -- is: "How can I get out of this with the minimum financial cost and disruption to my life?" One of the most shocking things a first time arrestee/defendant -- especially one white, middle class or above, without friends or relatives who have been through the system -- will discover is that no one really gives a damn is he or she is really guilty, and the ones who least give a damn are the cops and prosecutors. Now, this is not to say that the government side of law enforcement are a bunch of evil people who are secretly looking for otally innocent people to screw over. In fact, they themselves think of themselves as the "good guys" and the people they arrest and prsecute as the evil subhumans. Now, at this point, let me say that FOR THE MAJORITY OF CASES the forces of law enforcement are, indeed, right. MOST of the people the cops arrest are guilty of what they are arrested for, MOST of the people brought to trial are guilty, MOST of those convicted deserve their punishment. However, there remains this minority of innocent people caught up in the system by bad luck or bad associations. And I am NOT talking about some kind of "irreducible minimum of mistakes" that is inevitable in any human system. There is, in fact, very little trend in law enforcement to exonerate the guilty before arrest or indictment. On the contrary, the tendency is strongly the other way: naive innocent people are the easiest to arrest, convict, and get long sentences for. Such people will not plea bargain and will go to trial with the weakest of cases, trusting in what they believe to be the innate justice of the "justice" system, and the moral force of their own innocence. Prosecutors love that. Am I again accusing law enforcement of evil intent? No. However, I am saying they are the most susceptible to self-hyponosis. One a prosecutor has decided to indict you for a crime, even a videotape of someone else doing it, and an affadavit from the Pope saying you were in Rome with him at the time, will not change his/her mind. He/she will simply say that you somehow faked that videotape and that the Pope was with someone who looked like you and fooled him. This is why lawyers always advise people to never, never, never talk to the cops or prosecutor without an attorney present: WHEN YOU DO THIS YOU ARE LIKE A GENERAL GIVING HIS BATTLE PLANS TO THE ENEMY. Now, Mr. Beaver, tell the group I'm right, and feel free to print out this essay and give it to your clients. WHY LAWYERS TELL PEOPLE NOT TO TALK , INNOCENT OR NOT Group: alt.fan.oj-simpson Date: Wed, Mar 7, 2001, 5:04pm From: [email protected] (John Junot) ===== Original Message From [email protected] (Thomas P. Jabine) ===== [snip] If you were a policeman or a prosecutor, and a suspect/defendant told you a story that you hadn't anticipated, would you prosecute him anyway in order to save face? the answer is: probably. What would usually happen is that the police/prosecutor would check out your story and, under the belief it was a lie, look for ways to neutralize it. Only if he/she could not find a way to neutralize it would the p/p decide to let you go. I've watched this thread bounce around for quite awhile now. Beaver is actually laying down the turh to a bunch of laymen (i.e. "babes in the woods") but is not being explicit enough about it. Here's the way the "justice" (cough, gag, puke) system really works: Never mind that you get paid a salary, in our society all work is really "piecework". You keep your job and advance by your productivity. For the policeman, productivity is measured in arrests and cases cleared; for a prosecutor, by convictions, AND by severity of sentences dealt out to defendants convicted. That is, for a prosecutor, it's better to get one death sentence against an accused murderer than, say, ten sentences of five years for ten burglars. This also means, that, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF AND WHAT YOU ARE TAUGHT IN CIVICS CLASSES AND TV SHOWS, the questions of "who REALLY did this crime?" and "Was a crime even committed?" are purely secondary, and , as often as not, never enter into the arrest-trial-verdict-sentence process at all. Rather, the real operational questions are, for the cop, "Is there enough probable cause to make an arrest? (and for the DA to file charges)", and, for the prosecutor, "Is there enough evidence against the defendant for me to get a conviction?" and "Would a conviction in this case put enough points on my resume to make it worth my while to bring this to trial?" The real operational question for an arrestee/defendant -- and may you never discover this first hand -- is: "How can I get out of this with the minimum financial cost and disruption to my life?" One of the most shocking things a first time arrestee/defendant -- especially one white, middle class or above, without friends or relatives who have been through the system -- will discover is that no one really gives a damn is he or she is really guilty, and the ones who least give a damn are the cops and prosecutors. Now, this is not to say that the government side of law enforcement are a bunch of evil people who are secretly looking for otally innocent people to screw over. In fact, they themselves think of themselves as the "good guys" and the people they arrest and prsecute as the evil subhumans. Now, at this point, let me say that FOR THE MAJORITY OF CASES the forces of law enforcement are, indeed, right. MOST of the people the cops arrest are guilty of what they are arrested for, MOST of the people brought to trial are guilty, MOST of those convicted deserve their punishment. However, there remains this minority of innocent people caught up in the system by bad luck or bad associations. And I am NOT talking about some kind of "irreducible minimum of mistakes" that is inevitable in any human system. There is, in fact, very little trend in law enforcement to exonerate the guilty before arrest or indictment. On the contrary, the tendency is strongly the other way: naive innocent people are the easiest to arrest, convict, and get long sentences for. Such people will not plea bargain and will go to trial with the weakest of cases, trusting in what they believe to be the innate justice of the "justice" system, and the moral force of their own innocence. Prosecutors love that. Am I again accusing law enforcement of evil intent? No. However, I am saying they are the most susceptible to self-hyponosis. One a prosecutor has decided to indict you for a crime, even a videotape of someone else doing it, and an affadavit from the Pope saying you were in Rome with him at the time, will not change his/her mind. He/she will simply say that you somehow faked that videotape and that the Pope was with someone who looked like you and fooled him. This is why lawyers always advise people to never, never, never talk to the cops or prosecutor without an attorney present: WHEN YOU DO THIS YOU ARE LIKE A GENERAL GIVING HIS BATTLE PLANS TO THE ENEMY. Now, Mr. Beaver, tell the group I'm right, and feel free to print out this essay and give it to your clients. Jean On to 2002