Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Scooter]

No, that isn't it at all.

That most people would scream when exposed to extreme pain is obvious because it is readily observable. If pressed, I'm sure the evidence to support it is also available. That most parents would kill to protect their children is less obvious. Clearly there have been instances where parents have killed to protect their children; whether that is true of most parents might be answered by the method I previously posted. Perhaps the assertion that most prosecutors would suborn perjury if necessary could be answered by a similar method, I'm not sure if the necessary data even exists, however (it's not like prosecutors keep notes every time the opportunity to suborn perjury comes up, so that we could determine what proportion did or did not act on that opportunity).

[Lord Jim]

Of course it hasn't been all bad for Andrew...

Afterall, he's now picked up Quad as his new BFF....

(You'd think that for most people, that would probably be a red flag...but not apparently for Andrew....I know that if I suddenly found Quad givin' me the big "thumbs up" in a dispute involving personal integrity and honesty, that would get me to take a second look at how I was behaving...)

[Sue U]

Well, Andrew cited a number of studies and investigations of prosecutorial misconduct in the "Evidence, Believe It Or Don't" thread. It appears none of it directly confirms his assertion, which he readily admitted, but it does show that misconduct -- including subornation of perjury, suppression of exculpatory evidence, misleading the jury -- is a significant factor in a very high percentage of wrongful convictions, which, depending on sample size and actual data, may support an inference that it is a problem of very serious proportion among prosecutors as a whole.

[Andrew D]

Of course it hasn't been all bad for Andrew...

Afterall ....

he just keeps on kicking your sorry ass.

Ain't all bad ....

[Scooter]

Well, Andrew cited a number of studies and investigations of prosecutorial misconduct in the "Evidence, Believe It Or Don't" thread. It appears none of it directly confirms his assertion, which he readily admitted, but it does show that misconduct -- including subornation of perjury, suppression of exculpatory evidence, misleading the jury -- is a significant factor in a very high percentage of wrongful convictions

And what percentage of convictions are wrongful. Because if, say, it is 5%, and if prosecutorial misconduct figures in about 40% of those cases (as one of his sources said), then that is only evidence of prosecutors engaging in misconduct 2% of the time. Now, I am sure there is misconduct that goes undiscovered, but it is quite a leap from "misconduct (of all types) has been demonstrated in 2% of cases" to "most prosecutors would engage in a certain type of misconduct (subornation of perjury) if necessary". I don't see that as a particularly "rational inference".

[Sue U]

As I said in that thread, it's a simple question of math:

If five prosecutors each try 20 cases, and three of those prosecutors employ misconduct in one case each, you've got only 3 cases of misconduct out of 100 cases, yet more than half the prosecutors (60%) were willing to do it.

Of course, it depends on how the raw data from those cited studies breaks out, but it's certainly not an impossible leap.

[Lord Jim]

it is quite a leap from "misconduct (of all types) has been demonstrated in 2% of cases" to "most prosecutors would engage in a certain type of misconduct (subornation of perjury) if necessary". I don't see that as a particularly "rational inference".

If that finally sinks in with him Scooter, I'll buy you a steak dinner the next time you're in San Francisco....

[BoSoxGal]

This equation presupposes the 'if' - that 3/5 prosecutors would commit misconduct.

eta: I assume this entire discussion is premised on willful misconduct, since it originated out of assertions regarding the willingness of most prosecutors to subporn perjury.

[Scooter]

As I said in that thread, it's a simple question of math:

If five prosecutors each try 20 cases, and three of those prosecutors employ misconduct in one case each, you've got only 3 cases of misconduct out of 100 cases, yet more than half the prosecutors (60%) were willing to do it.

Of course, it depends on how the raw data from those cited studies breaks out, but it's certainly not an impossible leap.

Not an impossible leap, no, but since we don't see massive numbers of prosecutors being disciplined for misconduct, it hardly seems likely that the numbers shake out that way.

[Sue U]

This equation presupposes the 'if' - that 3/5 prosecutors would commit misconduct.

It's just one sample calculation to demonstrate the point simply, not a suggestion that 3/5 of prosecutors are actually engaging in misconduct. Which wasn't actually Andrew's assertion anyway -- only that he felt a majority would do so if it were required to secure a conviction. Not every prosecutor. Not every case. His contention was that most prosecutors, even if potentially in a single case over a career of hundreds of trials, would do so if the circumstances required. You can get to that number with a very small percentage of total cases.

[Andrew D]

The isse is would.

Would most prosecutors suborn perjury if necessary?

I don't mean necessary to convict someone of marijuana possession. I have not meant to suggest, and I hope that I have not suggested, the a prosecutor would throw her or his integrity and reputation and everything overboard to bust some Rasta bike messenger for smoking a joint.

I mean the serious shit.

You're a prosecutor. If you lie, scumbag is going to prison. If you tell the truth, scumbag is going to walk the streets.

And a few months from now, they're going to find Maria's body.

They're going to find her in a ditch somewhere. Broken this, broken that.

Scars on her. Burns on her forearms, burns on her thighs, burns on her face.

A burn where the guy shoved his cigar up against her clitoris while he was climaxing in her rectum.

To stop that from happening, would you lie?

Would I?

I don't know.

And I hope to God, if there is a God, thqt I never find out.

But unless you are willing to say that you would unhesitatingly tell the truth and let the sick fucker walk -- unless you are willing to say that you could walk up to her chidren and her parents and her siblings and say "sorry, but that's how it goes" -- don't give me your platitudinous bullshit.

What would I do?

I don't know.

I don't want to know.

But is it unreasonable to think, and to say, that most prosecutors in those circumstances would choose (a) lie and send scumbag to prison forever over (b) tell the truth and let scumbag go out and do it again?

I don't think so.

But maybe that's just me.

[Lord Jim]

We had a discussion here recently analyzing a report that was done in California, (BSG started the thread; maybe she can find the link..I don't have time to look i up right now) that showed that prosecutorial misconduct, (at least in California) sufficient to have a conviction reversed is relatively rare. My recollection is that 4000 recent cases were looked at, and that this happened only in 159 of them. (About 4%)

However, that study did also reveal that the failure to take disciplinary action in those relatively rare cases where prosecutorial misconduct of that magnitude did occur is a real problem. (At least again, in California...I forget the number but I recall that the number of prosecutors who had been disciplined for misconduct was extremely low...something like a dozen or less)

But that of course is a completely different issue that has no bearing at all on Andrew's butt-yanked assertion.

[Andrew D]

The issue is would.

Would most prosecutors suborn perjury if necessary?

I don't mean necessary to convict someone of marijuana possession. I have not meant to suggest, and I hope that I have not suggested, the a prosecutor would throw her or his integrity and reputation and everything overboard to bust some Rasta bike messenger for smoking a joint.

I mean the serious shit.

You're a prosecutor. If you lie, scumbag is going to prison. If you tell the truth, scumbag is going to walk the streets.

And a few months from now, they're going to find Maria's body.

They're going to find her in a ditch somewhere. Broken this, broken that.

Scars on her. Burns on her forearms, burns on her thighs, burns on her face.

A burn where the guy shoved his cigar up against her clitoris while he was climaxing in her rectum.

To stop that from happening, would you lie?

Would I?

I don't know.

And I hope to God, if there is a God, that I never find out.

But unless you are willing to say that you would unhesitatingly tell the truth and let the sick fucker walk -- unless you are willing to say that you could walk up to her chidren and her parents and her siblings and say "sorry, but that's how it goes" -- don't give me your platitudinous bullshit.

What would I do?

I don't know.

I don't want to know.

But is it unreasonable to think, and to say, that most prosecutors in those circumstances would choose (a) lie and send scumbag to prison forever over (b) tell the truth and let scumbag go out and do it again?

I don't think so.

But maybe that's just me.

[Lord Jim]

His contention was that most prosecutors, even if potentially in a single case over a career of hundreds of trials, would do so if the circumstances required. You can get to that number with a very small percentage of total cases.

Yeah, and it could also mean that they did it 100% of the time if they thought 100% of the time it was required to get a conviction....(since his assertion was that most would do it if they thought it was necessary to obtain a conviction)

And let's not forget that his assertion that this was "rare" was also based on another assertion that he never even pretended to provide one scintilla of proof to support....(whenever this was brought up he completely ignored it)

Namely, his accusation regarding the cops:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them.

[BoSoxGal]

I absolutely would not subporn perjury under any circumstances, not even the 'noble' circumstances presented in that hypothetical. I find it interesting that after so many posts impugning prosecutors, and me in particular, you are now going to such lengths to backtrack and to present what is essentially a very different argument.

The bottom line for me is that ethics is my #1 concern in practice; always has been, ever will be. I simply do not care that much about my 'conviction rate' to subjugate my character to advance it.

Beyond that, I have enough life experience and maturity to know that if (another) guilty murderer goes free due to a technicality or imperfect evidence, the universe still arcs toward justice and things will find a balance.

If that's platitudinous bullshit in your view, then again, that says more about the situational nature of your ethics, not mine.

[Lord Jim]

you are now going to such lengths to backtrack and to present what is essentially a very different argument.

Correcta-mundo...

Sue is now gamely attempting to do for Andrew, (and I giver high marks for the effort btw; she's doing just about the best job anyone could, given what Andrew's given her to work with) what Gwen so often attempted to do for Steve....

Translate his original assertion into one that is far more qualified and rational sounding....

Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, (as so often also happened with Gwen's efforts) the result is a very different proposition from the one that Andrew actually asserted....

ETA:

Sue obviously has more skills to bring to bear in trying to be Andrew's "Sueslator" then Gwen had trying to be Steve's "Gwenslator" , but she also has a much bigger challenge; since unlike Steve, (who frequently communicated in indecipherable gibberish that could easily be interpreted in a multitude of ways) Andrew's statement was straight forward, categorical, and crystal clear....

[Andrew D]

Fulminate, fulminate, fulminate.

Answer the question?

Nope.

Fulminate, fulminate, fulminate.

[Sue U]

Sue is now gamely attempting to do for Andrew, (and I giver high marks for the effort btw; she's doing just about the best job anyone could, given what Andrew's given her to work with) what Gwen so often attempted to do for Steve....

Andrew certainly doesn't need me to speak for him. And I am certainly entitled to form my own opinions about his arguments. The fact that my opinion doesn't agree with yours doesn't make me anyone's interpreter. As I said before, I simply understood the point Andrew was making and the evidence he used to support it. I'm not at all sure I agree with his assessment, but I think there is more to it than can be dismissed out of hand. As I also said before, my own personal (admittedly anecdotal) experience covering cops & crime for newspapers leads me to a rather jaundiced view of criminal prosecutions, although my experience there was mostly with cops and not so much with prosecutors. These days the prosecutors I know well are in municipal court, not at the (serious) county level, and municipal court is solely about making a deal, paying a lesser fine and getting out. (Yes, there is occasionally jail time involved.) However, while I have seen some very rough justice in municipal court, as well as laziness, incompetence and sheer indifference, I can't say I have ever seen willful misconduct by the prosecutor.

[quaddriver]

Three lawyers, who don't even practice criminal law, hardly a well-reasoned consensus on the status of most prosecution practices makes, quad.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but that was not one of the 2 points of this thread.

#1, Andrew made a claim and produced 'evidence' that backed up his claim. No one did otherwise. Whether or not he sufficiently proved his case in the world of public opinion is one thing. He was the only one who made an attempt. The rest of those who responded simply used the 'I dont like what he is saying, therefore I deem it false' debating tactic.

#2, LJ spent a lot of time purposefully mis-stating what Andrew said, in fact, and you can look it up if the 'un limited editing feature' is not on, LJ quoted what andrew said and told us the 'GIST' of what he said was different. GIST.

That is LJ-speak for 'I want his words to mean what I want them to mean, not what they mean'. This is by no means a new LJ trick.

[quaddriver]

If he had any grasp at all of what his Team Troll antics did to destroy his credibility and reputation here,....

Did I call it or what Andrew?

HERE

In the much maligned real world, the one with trees, jobs and oxygen, Andrews body of work stands on its own, even if I dont understand it. Someone else does.

and he is being lectured by whom? Shall we compare bodies of work? (Dont start preparing Andrew, I once made the same challenge but he slunk away like a coy-dog. Outside this very closed system, things matter and bullshit walks.)