A solution to end police corruption

a reply to: StoutBroux

They do care about their conviction numbers.

They do rely on testimony from police officers to win cases.

a reply to: onequestion
In all but three states, chief prosecutors are elected officials. So rather than seeking "higher conviction rates" it would seem that seeking lower crime rates would tend to be more apt to keep them in a job.

Don't you think?

You've never voted for prosecutor? Or maybe you live in one of "those" states. Palm Beach, Alaska?
www.cga.ct.gov...


See how useful answering a question can be?

a reply to: Phage

Same way a jury is picked and screened.

Have a set of rules that at least include all the limits above.

A bit like a Grand Jury, but no DA that oversees or gives recommendations, or, any other local lawyers, prosecutor. The board would report directly to a Judge.

originally posted by: Phage
You don't think that asking questions about proposed solutions can help the reasoning process?
Have you ever heard of the Socratic method?

Don't ask question, just agree....

originally posted by: DAVID64

A bit like a Grand Jury, but no DA that oversees or gives recommendations, or, any other local lawyers, prosecutor. The board would report directly to a Judge.

So.... What is the difference here to a Grand Jury? Just asking? In the case with Brown they were given 5000 pages of evidence... They came to a conclusion with 7 white and 5 black jurors, all not associated with the DA, Cops, or court in anyway.

a reply to: DAVID64

Same way a jury is picked and screened.

After an indictment has been handed down the jury is selected on agreement by legal representation of both sides of the argument. Either side may reject any potential juror.

A grand jury is selected by a group which has been selected by the court. A grand jury determines if a case has merit, just as a judge does if it the case does not fall to a grand jury. The grand jury stands for a specified term and rules on any cases handed to them during that term. How do you picture something different happening?

Have a set of rules that at least include all the limits above.

Each case is different so potential conflicts of interest vary. That is why a trial jury is selected by the legal representation on that particular case. What limits?

A bit like a Grand Jury, but no DA that oversees or gives recommendations, or, any other local lawyers, prosecutor. The board would report directly to a Judge.

Currently the prosecutor's office presents evidence to a judge or a grand jury to determine if a case has merit. It is up to the judge or grand jury to rule on where it goes from there. Who are you suggesting should take that role?

In the case with Brown they were given 5000 pages of evidence.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Not exactly. The transcripts cover 5000 pages, with very liberal spacing. That does not mean that the jurors were handed a phone book.

The transcripts cover testimony which the jurors received. In all but a few cases, the jurors heard recordings or live testimony. In most cases the jurors could see and question the witnesses (eyewitnesses and experts) themselves.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion

constructively adding to the general idea of the thread?

You don't think that asking questions about proposed solutions can help the reasoning process?
Have you ever heard of the Socratic method?

Why do you think that DAs want to show a "higher conviction rate?"

Because they have contracts to fill. Private prisons want to be x% full, that means DA's need to convict. As a routine matter of job performance they are also measured by their conviction rates. Someone with a low rate looks weak on crime and for the politicians at the top, looking soft on crime is a death sentence.

a reply to: Aazadan
Maybe you should read a few more posts.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan
Maybe you should read a few more posts.

Which posts? I read the entire thread. You asked why DA's want a higher conviction rate and never got an answer. The answer to that lies in politics. Convicting criminals and being able to show higher and higher rates of conviction has the appearance of more and more criminals being punished. Stopping crime is good politics.

a reply to: Aazadan

They need a high conviction rate so they can show the public they are doing their job.

If your a DA with a 10% conviction rate it's not about the facts of the case. Everyone will think the prosecutor is not doing their job.

It's really simple man show some intelligence. Not you azaden.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The difference is the prosecuted who is suppose to present a case against the police officer is I flue crs by the fact that the same prosecuted needs the same police department to comply with him with their testimony on other cases in order for them to get convictions.

A prosecuted with no convictions will get fired. If the prosecuted isn't competitive with their win ratio then they won't get the budget they need to continue prosecution those cases.

a reply to: Phage
No lower crime rates don't help in fact it's the opposite.

You don't know what your talking about.

im dealing with ignorance of the judicial system here.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan
Maybe you should read a few more posts.

Which posts? I read the entire thread. You asked why DA's want a higher conviction rate and never got an answer. The answer to that lies in politics. Convicting criminals and being able to show higher and higher rates of conviction has the appearance of more and more criminals being punished. Stopping crime is good politics.

Exactly.

a reply to: onequestion

If they were searching for high conviction rates why wouldn't they want to convict the officer?

Would that not count positively towards their conviction rates?