Garda interviews.

seb65

ResearchWill wrote: »

No I mean innocent a a person enters a court room innocent, and remains so till a finding of guilt. It the golden thread.

Actually, the finding is "not guilty" not "innocent". There have been all sorts of philosophical discussions on why we find accused's not guilty instead of innocent.

ResearchWill

seb65 wrote: »

Actually, the finding is "not guilty" not "innocent". There have been all sorts of philosophical discussions on why we find accused's not guilty instead of innocent.

That is the jury finding but as you enter court innocent you remain innocent the status does not change.

Procrastastudy

We have a binary state here unlike Scotland that has the "Not Proven" verdict which is different from a not guilty verdict. People forget it's a cornerstone of our legal system them people are innocent until proven guilty.

Frankly a defence lawyer using every means at his disposal in an adversarial system wouldn't keep me up night. Him/her NOT doing so would. I've some (very small) experience of miscarriages of justice and it ain't pretty!

SB2013

Procrastastudy wrote: »

We have a binary state here unlike Scotland that has the "Not Proven" verdict which is different from a not guilty verdict. People forget it's a cornerstone of our legal system them people are innocent until proven guilty.

Frankly a defence lawyer using every means at his disposal in an adversarial system wouldn't keep me up night. Him/her NOT doing so would. I've some (very small) experience of miscarriages of justice and it ain't pretty!

It might keep you up if you were his victim.

Procrastastudy

SB2013 wrote: »

It might keep you up if you were his victim.

I don't understand that logic. Would I want an innocent person locked up for a crime committed against me? No I'd want the actual person who wronged me punished. If due to crap prosecution on behalf of the DPP the person escapes punishment I'd be angry at the DPP.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

We have a binary state here unlike Scotland that has the "Not Proven" verdict which is different from a not guilty verdict. People forget it's a cornerstone of our legal system them people are innocent until proven guilty.

Frankly a defence lawyer using every means at his disposal in an adversarial system wouldn't keep me up night. Him/her NOT doing so would. I've some (very small) experience of miscarriages of justice and it ain't pretty!

I certainly did not forget that technically, under our justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty. However, to believe it is a cornerstone (in that it is afforded all the respect, on the ground as cornerstones are), or that, in practice, society holds these people are innocent, is terribly naive. If it was so dearly held as you seem to believe, juries would declare people "innocent".

SB2013

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I don't understand that logic. Would I want an innocent person locked up for a crime committed against me? No I'd want the actual person who wronged me punished. If due to crap prosecution on behalf of the DPP the person escapes punishment I'd be angry at the DPP.

Nobody said anything about an innocent person. A case cannot always be proven. It doesn't mean the guy in the dock is innocent. Maybe it's due to a poor prosecution, lack of evidence, inadequate legislation or dirty tricks that he wasn't found guilty. It doesn't matter really. I realise it's necessary for a defence barrister or solicitor to believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra for them to have a clear conscience but it doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

I certainly did not forget that technically, under our justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty. However, to believe it is a cornerstone (in that it is afforded all the respect, on the ground as cornerstones are), or that, in practice, society holds these people are innocent, is terribly naive. If it was so dearly held as you seem to believe, juries would declare people "innocent".

That would be declaring the state they were already in. It would be the same as declaring them human, male/female or declaring them to have there name. Declaring them innocent would imply they were not until that declaration - hence the use of the term 'not guilty'.

I think I'm gonna like juris when it comes around next year

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I don't understand that logic. Would I want an innocent person locked up for a crime committed against me? No I'd want the actual person who wronged me punished. If due to crap prosecution on behalf of the DPP the person escapes punishment I'd be angry at the DPP.

I believe being kept up at night may have something to do with the fear that the perp would come back to commit another offence against you.

So, you're saying if someone harmed you and suffered no repercussions for his actions, you'd only be mad at the DPP?

I call bulls**t.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

That would be declaring the state they were already in. It would be the same as declaring them human, male/female or declaring them to have there name. Declaring them innocent would imply they were not until that declaration - hence the use of the term 'not guilty'.

I think I'm gonna like juris when it comes around next year

Actually, as the DPP has the case to prove, "not guilty" means the DPP has not proven their case. The jury cannot declare them "innocent" as they have no idea whether they are actually innocent or not.

ResearchWill

seb65 wrote: »

I certainly did not forget that technically, under our justice system, people are innocent until proven guilty. However, to believe it is a cornerstone (in that it is afforded all the respect, on the ground as cornerstones are), or that, in practice, society holds these people are innocent, is terribly naive. If it was so dearly held as you seem to believe, juries would declare people "innocent".

The presumption of innocence is called the Golden Thread of the Criminal Justice system not the bronze or silver it's the golden thread.

Procrastastudy

SB2013 wrote: »

Nobody said anything about an innocent person. A case cannot always be proven. It doesn't mean the guy in the dock is innocent. Maybe it's due to a poor prosecution, lack of evidence, inadequate legislation or dirty tricks that he wasn't found guilty. It doesn't matter really. I realise it's necessary for a defence barrister or solicitor to believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra for them to have a clear conscience but it doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Again why would they need anything to have a clear conscience? They are engaging in an adversarial process. They are bound by a code of ethics that does not allow them to plead innocence where the accused admits guilt. All that is required is that they do no prejudge. They present one side, the prosecution presents another and the jury decides.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

Actually, as the DPP has the case to prove, "not guilty" means the DPP has not proven their case. The jury cannot declare them "innocent" as they have no idea whether they are actually innocent or not.

They are told at the beginning of the trail the person is innocent. I wish I was better at remembering case law and quotes but the gist is that stating such can never be reduced to a mere formality.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

They are told at the beginning of the trail the person is innocent. I wish I was better at remembering case law and quotes but the gist is that stating such can never be reduced to a mere formality.

If they are told at the beginning of a trial that a person is innocent, then what is the jury doing there in the first place?:P

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

I believe being kept up at night may have something to do with the fear that the perp would come back to commit another offence against you.

So, you're saying if someone harmed you and suffered no repercussions for his actions, you'd only be mad at the DPP?

I call bulls**t.

Sorry you feel that way but I don't think you read my post fully.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

If they are told at the beginning of a trial that a person is innocent, then what is the jury doing there in the first place?:P

Deciding if the person is guilty by virtue of the prosecution's case.

[Removed irrelevant part which called for personal information - sorry Seb]

seb65

ResearchWill wrote: »

The presumption of innocence is called the Golden Thread of the Criminal Justice system not the bronze or silver it's the golden thread.

It may be that the rights of an accused are based on the presumption of innocence. However, to say that, practically, a person is viewed as innocent by their peers until they are proven to be guilty, is terribly naive. If they were lilly white innocent, there would be no need for the question of bail and their names would not be published until they were found guilty.

To say that someone is innocent of a crime merely because they were found not guilty is wrong.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Deciding if the person is guilty by virtue of the prosecution's case.

No offence Seb and I mean no offence because I might be mistaken here but aren't you legally qualified some how? (Law degree / FE1s) I only say this because you might not agree with it but you know its the procedure.

What you said was, the jury is told the defendant is innocent (I assume you mean by the judge). If the judge tells the jury the defendant is innocent, what does the jury have left to decide?

Perhaps you meant the jury is told the defendant is innocent...until proven guilty.

ResearchWill

seb65 wrote: »

It may be that the rights of an accused are based on the presumption of innocence. However, to say that, practically, a person is viewed as innocent by their peers until they are proven to be guilty, is terribly naive. If they were lilly white innocent, there would be no need for the question of bail and their names would not be published until they were found guilty.

To say that someone is innocent of a crime merely because they were found not guilty is wrong.

Watch any Jury trial, because of the view you hold the Judge and both Prosecution and Defence take up a huge amount of time hammering home the innocent till proven guilty, to have a jury think anything else means we should just let AGS make the finding.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

What you said was, the jury is told the defendant is innocent (I assume you mean by the judge). If the judge tells the jury the defendant is innocent, what does the jury have left to decide?

Perhaps you meant the jury is told the defendant is innocent...until proven guilty.

So you're saying that innocent until proven guilty is some other state than innocent despite the overwhelming Irish and Common Law jurisprudence to say otherwise?

While I concede people have difficulty with the concept and say X must have done it how is what the 'mob' think without considering the case relevant?

To your point on peers - how does any jury ever acquit then?

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

So you're saying that innocent until proven guilty is some other state than innocent despite the overwhelming Irish and Common Law jurisprudence to say otherwise?

While I concede people have difficulty with the concept and say X must have done it how is what the 'mob' think without considering the case relevant?

To your point on peers - how does any jury ever acquit then?

What I'm saying is that you said the Jury is told the defendant is innocent. If they are told the defendant is innocent, what do they have left to decide?

That's why I think you mean innocent until proven guilty. Of course the jury is not told the defendant is innocent (by the judge or the DPP). They are told the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As to your other points, whether the defendant is innocent or guilty is determined by whether they committed the offence or not. The defendant is not made innocent or guilty by the decision of the jury. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are two separate states of being.

Juries do acquit, however, that does not mean they always make the correct decision. Many an innocent man (or woman) has been found guilty.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you said the Jury is told the defendant is innocent. If they are told the defendant is innocent, what do they have left to decide?

That's why I think you mean innocent until proven guilty. Of course the jury is not told the defendant is innocent (by the judge or the DPP). They are told the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As to your other points, whether the defendant is innocent or guilty is determined by whether they committed the offence or not. The defendant is not made innocent or guilty by the decision of the jury. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are two separate states of being.

Juries do acquit, however, that does not mean they always make the correct decision. Many an innocent man (or woman) has been found guilty.

I think we fundamentally disagree and from my point of view leave it at that. Yes indeed the words used might be innocent until proven guilty but I disagree that changes anything - the accused is still innocent - but fair enough greater clarity is never a bad thing.

(NB please note my edit and apologies for getting personal however slight.)

We've got a bit of point here - so here goes. In a system that places so much emphasis on oral evidence I find it very strange that portions of the interview aren't simply played back in court. So that the jury can hear everything - including any 'forceful questioning' on behalf of the guards but also any signs from the accused that he might be lying. I find it odd we distil it down to an easily manipulated written form.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I think we fundamentally disagree and from my point of view leave it at that. Yes indeed the words used might be innocent until proven guilty but I disagree that changes anything - the accused is still innocent - but fair enough greater clarity is never a bad thing.

(NB please note my edit and apologies for getting personal however slight.)

We've got a bit of point here - so here goes. In a system that places so much emphasis on oral evidence I find it very strange that portions of the interview aren't simply played back in court. So that the jury can hear everything - including any 'forceful questioning' on behalf of the guards but also any signs from the accused that he might be lying. I find it odd we distil it down to an easily manipulated written form.

The accused can have the tape played it happens a lot in fact as long as questions are answered, it's god awful boring though.

I have never seen it done, I have seen AGS try to the inferences but as I said they have not been able to do so.


i have seen it done in many trials and i can assure you it is taken into consideration.

ResearchWill

bubblypop wrote: »

I have never seen it done, I have seen AGS try to the inferences but as I said they have not been able to do so.


i have seen it done in many trials and i can assure you it is taken into consideration.

I have been involved in a number of cases where AGS have tried to use the inferences they have not yet done so with any success. Maybe I'm just better than the defence barristers you have seen in action. I have spoken to a number of both prosecution and defence barristers and all have told me they never saw it used to any success, I am only aware of only a couple of CCA decisions on the issue including the one that led to the 2007 amendment.

valleyoftheunos

I think I might take the opinion of the Criminal laywer on this one.

By which I mean Lawyer who practices in the area of Criminal Law