What is an acceptable conviction rate?

Victor

I was present for a conversation where a doctor involved in forensic work bemoaned the low conviction rate. For say 100 arrests there might have been 90 workable cases, 80 are brought to court and 60 are convictions. There will be genuine reasons for not proceeding with some cases and there will be some procedural errors and some cases where the burden of proof just isn't satisfied.

Now if 100% of people who are arrested are convicted, that would be unhealthy for the justice system, either the police are very conservative in their arrest policy and only arresting when they know they can win the case or alternatively convictions are "arranged".

The flip side of a low conviction rate would be the implication of sloppy police work or arrests where there is little evidence.

So, what is an acceptable conviction rate?

Overheal

It has to be some kind of formula based upon the type and number of case reports versus convictions.

eg. 1000 jaywalking incidents (ha) - 0-1% conviction rate acceptable

1000 rape reports - 0-1% just doesnt cut it.

Conviction rates dont seem an appropriate measure of judiciary effectiveness imo. Not unless you get very specific; ie. for crime A there were x% for crime B there were y%

Maximilian

Depends if they are your clients or not...

Gobán Saor

I believe that in Ireland, for serious offences, about 99.9% of accused persons are guilty (in the sense that "they did it" rather than the legal concept of guilt provable under laws of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.) There is the very odd exception where the Guards and the DPP get it wrong but these are few and far between.

Victor

Gobán Saor wrote: »

I believe that in Ireland, for serious offences, about 99.9% of accused persons are guilty (in the sense that "they did it" rather than the legal concept of guilt provable under laws of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.) There is the very odd exception where the Guards and the DPP get it wrong but these are few and far between.

Remind me who pays your fees.

bigbobbya

I think this question is possibly the wrong way of looking at the relationship between the numbers of reported crimes, charges/summonses and convictions. Problems relating to Garda investigation of offences, creating so-called 'technicalities,' probably need to be addressed in isolation from the rest of the criminal justice process. In terms of any real shortcomings in the system, it is this aspect which is by far the most unsatisfactory. I recently had some exposure to the Garda training in the laws of evidence and to describe it as shockingly poor would be an understatement. This issue needs to be dealt with immediately, as many otherwise proven criminals are evading justice courtesy of a windfall in the form of Garda incompetence. Those who would advocate any relaxation of the rules of evidence so as to limit the number of 'technicalities' are simply advocating a criminal justice system in which sub-standard policing is not only tolerated, but officially endorsed, a very dangerous departure by all accounts.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

I was present for a conversation where a doctor involved in forensic work bemoaned the low conviction rate. For say 100 arrests there might have been 90 workable cases, 80 are brought to court and 60 are convictions. There will be genuine reasons for not proceeding with some cases and there will be some procedural errors and some cases where the burden of proof just isn't satisfied.

One of the problems is that doctors involved in forensic work bemoan the low conviction rate. There is nothing worse for a prosecution than a zealous doctor who appears to be trying to bolster the prosecution case by either exceeding their area of expertise i.e. a doctor stating that a bruise on the arm is clear evidence of rape, or one who refuses to admit a fact that is beneficial to the accused:
Q - So the absence of bruising is consistent with consensual intercourse?
A - It doesn't support the accused's account because in most rape cases there is no bruising.
Q - But it is consistent with the accused's account?
and so on...

The reality is that professional witnesses (and many garda witnesses) have little or nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the prosecution cases and they just shouldn't get involved or care either way. If anything, it just looks a bit silly, especially from professional people who should know better. Obviously as citizens they have an interest in the integrity of the justice system, but the integrity of the system is maintained by the prosecution limiting their role to presenting the evidence fairly, not by seeking convictions at all costs.

Victor wrote: »

Now if 100% of people who are arrested are convicted, that would be unhealthy for the justice system, either the police are very conservative in their arrest policy and only arresting when they know they can win the case or alternatively convictions are "arranged".

Arrest by a garda and the decision to prosecute are very different things. Arrest is part of the investigation and the decision to prosecute is the result of that investigation.

Victor wrote: »

The flip side of a low conviction rate would be the implication of sloppy police work or arrests where there is little evidence.

That's exactly it, most cases that don't result in a conviction are down to failures in the investigation or holes in the evidence. Neither of these should be ignored to increase the conviction rate or for another political reason.

Victor wrote: »

So, what is an acceptable conviction rate?

The same as the rate of guilty persons charged to innocent persons charged. Anything more or less is due to something going wrong somewhere along the way.

johnnyskeleton

Gobán Saor wrote: »

I believe that in Ireland, for serious offences, about 99.9% of accused persons are guilty (in the sense that "they did it" rather than the legal concept of guilt provable under laws of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.) There is the very odd exception where the Guards and the DPP get it wrong but these are few and far between.

I disagree completely.

Firstly, I believe that there is a much greater liklihood of persons charged with minor offences being guilty than persons charged with serious offences because while minor offences are usually straightforward (e.g. you didn't produce your licence to the garda, you have no reasonable excuse, guilty), more serious offences (i.e. those involving sexual misconduct, violence, death or drug dealing) are quite complex, and the opportunities for the investigating gardai to make mistakes are much higher.

Secondly, the legal concept of guilt is the most reliable guide to who is actually guilty than what anybody believes. At the end of the day, it is a matter for the jury to decide, and 12 good citizens, honest and true, in the sober setting of the Circuit / Central Criminal Court will decide the issue based on the particular facts rather than on, for example, faith in the ability of the gardai (or for that matter, prejudged support of the accused).

But mostly, it seems to me that the gardai are not infallable, and don't always get it right. There are many great gardai, but there are also many lazy incompetent and / or corrupt ones. Added to that that every big organisation makes mistakes, and I can't see how 99.9% of accused persons are guilty. I would base this on documented cases of innocent persons being convicted, innocent persons being vindicated in court, and persons making false allegations. Added to this that there are many cases where the gardai and DPP aren't even certain themselves whether the person is guilty or not, but they put it before a jury and let them decide e.g. rape, assault and other civilian-complainant cases, and I don't think there is anywhere near that amount of people charged who are actually guilty.

And I would also say that just because a person does an act which can be criminal (e.g. using someone else's credit card without permission, hitting someone etc) does not mean that they intended it and without criminal intent there is no crime.

johnnyskeleton

bigbobbya wrote: »

Problems relating to Garda investigation of offences, creating so-called 'technicalities,' probably need to be addressed in isolation from the rest of the criminal justice process. In terms of any real shortcomings in the system, it is this aspect which is by far the most unsatisfactory. I recently had some exposure to the Garda training in the laws of evidence and to describe it as shockingly poor would be an understatement. This issue needs to be dealt with immediately, as many otherwise proven criminals are evading justice courtesy of a windfall in the form of Garda incompetence.

I would suggest that most of these technicalities are due to evidence that would not have been collected were it not for the gardai in the first place. So, for example, what one person calls "technicalities" can actually be, for example, a garda bullying an accused into making admissions, admissions which they would not have made were it not for the bullying. Another example would be where the gardai seize a suspected quantity of drugs, misplace them for a while, and then it magically reappears and is confirmed to be drugs. How do you know that they didn't simply take a quantity of drugs from another case and just switch them because they "know he's guilty". But I think ultimately the best training a garda can get is on-the-job training, so to speak i.e. untill they have been put through their proofs in court, they will never really follow the rules.

bigbobbya wrote: »

Those who would advocate any relaxation of the rules of evidence so as to limit the number of 'technicalities' are simply advocating a criminal justice system in which sub-standard policing is not only tolerated, but officially endorsed, a very dangerous departure by all accounts.

I would agree that a relaxation could be used for those purposes, but there are a number of changes that make sense and don't cause any great prejudice i.e. evidence given by way of notice.

bigbobbya

You're completely right in the sense that most evidence excluded on the basis 'technicalities' is so excluded with good cause. However, ignoring the classical categories there is a clear overarching dichotomy - (i) evidence excluded because it is unreliable and (ii) evidence excluded because it has been obtained in some manner which is unfair to the accused.

The first category should of course be subject to a general exclusionary rule and Garda incompetence/corruption there, as you rightly suggest, often uncovers or creates evidence that would not otherwise exist. However, the second category is where their ineptitude is really hurting the system. The classic & much-documented example is the expired search warrant. In such cases, there can be no question but that the illicit material existed and that, but for the defect, all the necessary elements of the offence could be proven. As I previously suggested, the correct option here is not to relax the rules of evidence (as the masses might suggest) to secure a conviction, but rather to address the root of the problem, namely that Gardaí often can't count when 7 days have passed. The fact that so many, or indeed any, standard form applications (e.g. search warrants) are either secured or performed with a defect is very disconcerting for the average citizen.

johnnyskeleton

bigbobbya wrote: »

You're completely right in the sense that most evidence excluded on the basis 'technicalities' is so excluded with good cause. However, ignoring the classical categories there is a clear overarching dichotomy - (i) evidence excluded because it is unreliable and (ii) evidence excluded because it has been obtained in some manner which is unfair to the accused.

The first category should of course be subject to a general exclusionary rule and Garda incompetence/corruption there, as you rightly suggest, often uncovers or creates evidence that would not otherwise exist. However, the second category is where their ineptitude is really hurting the system. The classic & much-documented example is the expired search warrant. In such cases, there can be no question but that the illicit material existed and that, but for the defect, all the necessary elements of the offence could be proven. As I previously suggested, the correct option here is not to relax the rules of evidence (as the masses might suggest) to secure a conviction, but rather to address the root of the problem, namely that Gardaí often can't count when 7 days have passed. The fact that so many, or indeed any, standard form applications (e.g. search warrants) are either secured or performed with a defect is very disconcerting for the average citizen.

I agree with you, but I'm coming at it from a different angle. What I mean is this:

Garda 1 is competent and uses a valid search warrant to obtain evidence used to convict.

Garda 2 is incompetent and uses an invalid search warrant to obtain evidence which is excluded and this leads to an acquittal.

Garda 3 is also incompetent, but instead of getting a search warrant he just sits on his ass and doesn't bother searching the house. Without the evidence which could have been gained from such a search, the accused is acquitted.

Now, while in an ideal world we would only have garda 1s, the reality is that what Garda 2 & 3 do is the exact same (from an evidence gathering perspective). That is to say, the incompetence of the garda leads to acquittal whether the accused "gets off on a technicality" or simply gets off because of insufficient evidence. This is very different to, for example, a legal technicality which prevents a civilian witness from giving evidence (which, in my view, rarely happens). Ultimately, while more training on the rules of evidence would result in more convictions, it is because this leads to less garda incompetence (a "reduction in the hamfisted copper quotient(HCQ)") rather than because the gardai are losing out to clever clogs lawyers and judges (or indeed anyone with a bit of savvy when charged with a criminal offence) who get off on technicalities.

I guess the difference is really semantic - I find the word technicalities in this sense has a dismissive connotation.