Why the US Supreme Court has truth methods unconstitutional ?

[saveliberty]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I don't know where you live but I would wager heavily it is not in New York City or, probably, not in any other similarly massive metropolis wherein dozens if not hundreds of arrested persons are brought before an arraignment court five days (or nights) a week. While the vast majority of these individuals are guilty of the offense(s) they are charged with there is ample cause to believe that a small percentage of them are not. And while very few of their total number can afford to pay an experienced criminal lawyer to spend the time it will take to carefully investigate the circumstances surrounding their arrest and to properly prepare a defense, the rest will rely on the extremely limited resources of the public defender's office.

In New York City the public defender is the Legal Aid Society which typically is overburdened and cannot possibly provide the kind of representation and oversight which is absolutely essential to mounting an effective criminal defense. As the result of this inability of the System to provide more than the most superficial and glaringly inadequate representation for every insolvent individual charged with a crime the Innocence Project has begun to show that a surprising number of persons convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to long prison terms were clearly innocent of those crimes. The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

The only point I wish to make here is that anyone who is not able to afford a lawyer, who knows how to navigate the intricately complicated criminal court system, is able to obtain and present the relevant facts and defend them against a false or mistaken criminal charge, can end up in prison -- as many individuals clearly, and shamefully, have.

So I wish to respectfully advise you that your belief that "All attempts are made to preserve innocence . . ." is misguided and misleading where larger communities are concerned. But If you live in a small town where the public defender is not overburdened with individual cases, has time to adequately investigate the relevant circumstances, to make all the necessary motions to examine and present evidence and to re-examine testimony, etc., then you have a valid point.

You realize the OP wants to make prosecuting people easier with less restrictions on evidence gathering and the like...

 

[yiostheoy]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I don't know where you live but I would wager heavily it is not in New York City or, probably, not in any other similarly massive metropolis wherein dozens if not hundreds of arrested persons are brought before an arraignment court five days (or nights) a week. While the vast majority of these individuals are guilty of the offense(s) they are charged with there is ample cause to believe that a small percentage of them are not. And while very few of their total number can afford to pay an experienced criminal lawyer to spend the time it will take to carefully investigate the circumstances surrounding their arrest and to properly prepare a defense, the rest will rely on the extremely limited resources of the public defender's office.

In New York City the public defender is the Legal Aid Society which typically is overburdened and cannot possibly provide the kind of representation and oversight which is absolutely essential to mounting an effective criminal defense. As the result of this inability of the System to provide more than the most superficial and glaringly inadequate representation for every insolvent individual charged with a crime the Innocence Project has begun to show that a surprising number of persons convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to long prison terms were clearly innocent of those crimes. The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

The only point I wish to make here is that anyone who is not able to afford a lawyer, who knows how to navigate the intricately complicated criminal court system, is able to obtain and present the relevant facts and defend them against a false or mistaken criminal charge, can end up in prison -- as many individuals clearly, and shamefully, have.

So I wish to respectfully advise you that your belief that "All attempts are made to preserve innocence . . ." is misguided and misleading where larger communities are concerned. But If you live in a small town where the public defender is not overburdened with individual cases, has time to adequately investigate the relevant circumstances, to make all the necessary motions to examine and present evidence and to re-examine testimony, etc., then you have a valid point.

People should not commit crimes.

Other people should not hang around areas and others where crimes are being committed.

Very simple.

 

[ask why]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I don't know where you live but I would wager heavily it is not in New York City or, probably, not in any other similarly massive metropolis wherein dozens if not hundreds of arrested persons are brought before an arraignment court five days (or nights) a week. While the vast majority of these individuals are guilty of the offense(s) they are charged with there is ample cause to believe that a small percentage of them are not. And while very few of their total number can afford to pay an experienced criminal lawyer to spend the time it will take to carefully investigate the circumstances surrounding their arrest and to properly prepare a defense, the rest will rely on the extremely limited resources of the public defender's office.

In New York City the public defender is the Legal Aid Society which typically is overburdened and cannot possibly provide the kind of representation and oversight which is absolutely essential to mounting an effective criminal defense. As the result of this inability of the System to provide more than the most superficial and glaringly inadequate representation for every insolvent individual charged with a crime the Innocence Project has begun to show that a surprising number of persons convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to long prison terms were clearly innocent of those crimes. The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

The only point I wish to make here is that anyone who is not able to afford a lawyer, who knows how to navigate the intricately complicated criminal court system, is able to obtain and present the relevant facts and defend them against a false or mistaken criminal charge, can end up in prison -- as many individuals clearly, and shamefully, have.

So I wish to respectfully advise you that your belief that "All attempts are made to preserve innocence . . ." is misguided and misleading where larger communities are concerned. But If you live in a small town where the public defender is not overburdened with individual cases, has time to adequately investigate the relevant circumstances, to make all the necessary motions to examine and present evidence and to re-examine testimony, etc., then you have a valid point.

People should not commit crimes.

Other people should not hang around areas and others where crimes are being committed.

Very simple.

Thank you for your comments!

In every city the process of interviewing people of interest is done looking for motive. A innocent person would want a method to provide information about their alibi. The guilty would not.
The gathering of facts leading to the truth saves time and money. I wish there was no sick individuals that prey on the innocent, material or personal, but there will always be crime.
There is not a simple answer to protecting the innocent and suspects rights without mistakes.
A person in their home or walking home from school should not have to worry about being victimized.
A family investing their savings should not have to worry about their savings being stolen.
Being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, should be defendable.
Why did I enter these post? To get people thinking and talking about updating laws and technics needed for todays legal issues.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

In every city the process of interviewing people of interest is done looking for motive.

[...]

Unfortunately, in too many cities the primary purpose of investigating criminal acts is disposing of the case as quickly and as expediently as possible, even when there is some cause to doubt a prime suspect's guilt. The reason for this is a backed up volume of cases to investigate and/or simple cynicism and apathy on the part of the investigators and the prosecutor. In other words -- close the case as quickly as possible and by any means necessary.

The successful efforts of The Innocence Project is clear and unmistakable evidence of this: The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

 

[ask why]

[...]

In every city the process of interviewing people of interest is done looking for motive.

[...]

Unfortunately, in too many cities the primary purpose of investigating criminal acts is disposing of the case as quickly and as expediently as possible, even when there is some cause to doubt a prime suspect's guilt. The reason for this is a backed up volume of cases to investigate and/or simple cynicism and apathy on the part of the investigators and the prosecutor. In other words -- close the case as quickly as possible and by any means necessary.

The successful efforts of The Innocence Project is clear and unmistakable evidence of this: The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

That is a good start with the Innocence Project. Unfortunately It takes time and money while an innocent waits in prison and the true criminal is free to repeat his crimes.

I hope those that might be following this, ask what can be done? Why not use truth serums and/or lie detectors in the pursuit of the truth. Why not ask the Supreme court to revise the law about truth serum. Lets give a wrongly accused suspect all the protection of law. Lets not let the suspect use the law to escape the truth.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I hope those that might be following this, ask what can be done? Why not use truth serums and/or lie detectors in the pursuit of the truth. Why not ask the Supreme court to revise the law about truth serum. Lets give a wrongly accused suspect all the protection of law. Lets not let the suspect use the law to escape the truth.

Unfortunately, both the lie detector (polygraph) and truth serum (sodium thiopental - or pentothal) have been shown to be less than fully reliable, which is why neither are acceptable as evidence in a criminal trial. And while many criminal defendants vigorously demand to be subjected to examination via these methods their lawyers, whether private or public, strongly advise against it.

But I agree both testing methods should be publicly funded for use by an expanded Innocence Project for the purpose of initially evaluating reasonably credible claims of innocence. Because an already convicted felon has nothing to lose but everything to gain and any expenditure leading to exoneration of just one convicted innocent is worth every penny spent on the entire program.