Presumption of 'innocence' vs 'guilt' & the Japanese police

[GodEmperorLeto]

The US has a very different approach, as suspect are told the Miranda Rights ("You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, etc.") which somewhat presumes the suspect NOT to be innocent.

As was previously stated, these rights are informing the suspect that they need not respond to a police interrogation without legal counsel. That doesn't mean the cops won't try their damndest to get them to crack. Ever see The Usual Suspects? U.S. cops aren't the most intelligent people on earth (in general), and the detective in that movie proves it by saying, "If a man is dead, and you think his brother did it, you find out you were right."

It is the courts that determine guilt or innocence. The cops just do everything they can to get you to confess (short of physical abuse, which they occasionally do, but don't always get away with).

That is maybe why I am so shocked to see how in the USA and Japan suspects (NOT convicted criminals or people arrested red-handed) are typically handcuffed and interrogated with little respect as if they were indeed criminals.

It's like nice_gaijin said. They take no chances. Being a police officer in the U.S. is very dangerous, and it isn't always just the yahoos with guns. It can be anyone who is having a bad day or with a few loose screws in their head. I knew a guy who, while cuffed, kicked the door to the police cruiser off (literally, he demolished it), jumped out while it was still moving, and ran 3 miles home. People are capable of anything.

Dunno about Japan though.

Yes, but Miranda or not, one should not get body searched and handcuffed for speeding or stealing something. It's not like they are cold-blooded murderers.

For speeding excessively, yeah, you can get taken downtown. But unless the officer is a real jerk, or has enough reason to, he/she probably won't do any of that if it was only 10 or 20 over the limit.

I guess it is necessary in such a violent society as the US, where anybody can carry a firearm.

Yeah, um, we aren't that violent. It is extremely hard to get guns in many states, especially in urban areas. Most criminals who have guns got them illegally (i.e. they are stolen, illegally imported, etc.). If you want so much as a .22 Ruger practice rifle you need a thorough background check and your weapon must be registered with the police and goes on your permanent record. If you want to carry a weapon unconcealed on your person, it is even more difficult to get a permit. And it is damn near impossible to get a concealed weapon permit unless you are already a cop. Even blades longer than 8 inches require a permit. You can't just walk down to the corner store and buy an AK-47, contrary to common misconceptions.

It may not be an accurate reflection of reality, but when I watch American series like CSI or Ally McBeal (very different series), I see people getting handcuffed for wearing a too short skirt in court (Ally McBeal), for making someone trip in a supermarket 'by accident' (again, Ally McBeal), or for small offences like that.

That is far, far from reality. Besides, Ally McBeal? Come on.

Drunken Japanese drivers like ones in TV programs like Japan Police 24hr must get shot in the US, I suppose.

We have a ton of police-chase TV specials every month. Cops rarely use deadly force for them, unless the suspect is actively trying to kill people. Sometimes it's just some really dumb ***** who would have just had a speeding ticket, but decides he wants to try to run for it instead. Yeah, right, police cruisers are often seriously souped up.

I was handcuffed, put in the back of a patrol car, and taken to juvinile hall where I spent months awaiting trial without ever being given a chance to defend myself.

This has happened to someone I know. Oh, and, surprise, surprise, he was a WASP. Regardless, a public defender found him languishing, awaiting a court date while on a routine visit to a client, and managed to get him out. It's bureaucracy and pencil-pushers that are your enemy here, not the old white guys sitting in judgement over you.

Besides, plenty of people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit because of bad jury selection practices, and also because people don't understand concepts like jury nullification (which goes back to Elizabethan England). In fact, some people who are acquitted still suffer from ruined lives, like plenty of teachers and principals accused of "molesting" students, students who later come clean and admit they lied, but the defendant still has to live in shame and can never work in that field again.

The only "presumtion of innocence" was my naive and innocent presumtion that I had rights.

The moment you decide that for yourself is the moment you waive your rights. There is nothing more powerful in the United States than an informed citizen. Indeed, the police often fear you and legal councils will respect you if you educate yourself in the law. The power is in your hands, and I have seen what it can do with a number of well-informed, intelligent citizens.

I get really tired of people who say things like "the presumption of innocence is a very important part of the American legal system." or "short of a suspect actively threatening others' lives, there isn't much they could do to get a cop to use deadly force on them", because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
...
...and if you're poor, half-mexican, and scary-looking like I am, they usually think you're guilty.

Uh-huh. Well, I'm glad your fair and unbalanced opinion has been voiced on this forum. Perhaps you'd like a taste of the Napoleonic Code? Or maybe you'd like to convert from Islam to Christianity in Saudi Arabia?

The police and the prosecutor aren't supposed to think you are innocent. And the jury is supposed to decide guilt or innocence. Not the police. It has nothing to do with poor, half-Mexican, or scary-looking. That's your excuse, and everything else you've said is a cop out. You can educate yourself or you can continue playing the victim card. It's your choice.

[Reiku]

You hear a person complain that the judicial system is unfair, then cite racism against hispanics as a reason, and assume I am uneducated?

At the risk of fitting into your stereotype, there's a hint of racism in your reaction as well, Leto.

Perhaps you confused me with the "poor dumb minority bitching about his rights"?

Deny it all you like, you response shows your presumptions about me clearly. Although I'm willing to bet you weren't aware of the prejudice coloring your opinion--most people aren't...

...and that's the point.

Despite the written law, people in the US are not always presumed inocent--most of the time they are presumed guilty.

It is a natural human reaction, and you cannot overide human emotion with laws. You yourself have supported this point:

In fact, some people who are acquitted still suffer from ruined lives, like plenty of teachers and principals accused of "molesting" students, students who later come clean and admit they lied, but the defendant still has to live in shame and can never work in that field again.

Despite what some people think, police and judges are still human, and subject to the same prejudices and frailties as the rest of us. The natural tendancy to assume a suspect's guilt does not dissapear the moment you put on a badge--if anything, the situation becomes worse. Because they see themselves as agents of justice, a police officer or judge who assumes a person's guilt may feel driven to prove or punish that guilt--without realizing that they have jumped to a conclusion based on personal bias.

Not unlike you assuming that I was ignorant of the law--I'm actually quite well versed in it. Sociology has always interested me, and you can learn a lot about a culture by studying it's laws. I've been studying the laws of our culture for most of my life, and I've learned that laws cannot dictate emotional responses, such as bigotry or the presumtion of guilt or innocence. Sometimes laws can prevent a person from acting on those responses, but more often than not suspects in the US are assumed to be guilty--regardless of what it says on paper.

Don't mistake first-hand experiance for personal bias, Leto, and don't mistake rash judgements for wisdom.

[GodEmperorLeto]

You hear a person complain that the judicial system is unfair, then cite racism against hispanics as a reason, and assume I am uneducated?
At the risk of fitting into your stereotype, there's a hint of racism in your reaction as well, Leto.

I was responding to the fact that you opened the door to race being a factor in how you were being treated. To quote you:

...and if you're poor, half-mexican, and scary-looking like I am, they usually think you're guilty.

I didn't cite racism, you did right there. Whether you intended to or not, you made it a racial issue. I cited the incident of my friend being a WASP to counter any attempt at establishing racism as a motivating factor in bad bureaucracy, as well as to point out that your experience was neither unique, nor due to "innocence vs. guilt" assumptions. Any racism you percieved there, you inserted yourself. In addition, any connection you percieve between your incident and "innocence vs. guilt" presumptions in the judicial system are red herrings.

Perhaps you confused me with the "poor dumb minority bitching about his rights"?

Absolutely not. But I know plenty of college-educated people who don't know a damn about the law and get taken for a ride, then sit around and complain about it rather than doing something constructive.
By the way, lay off the ad hominem attacks. They don't support your argument.

Deny it all you like, you response shows your presumptions about me clearly. Although I'm willing to bet you weren't aware of the prejudice coloring your opinion

Yet another ad hominem attack. And not a single quote to back your own presumptions up.

Despite the written law, people in the US are not always presumed inocent--most of the time they are presumed guilty.

You fail to illustrate actual facts supporting your conclusion, but instead supply anecdotal fallacies. You have decided that since the police and prosecutors assume your guilt, as well as your languishing in juvi due to rampant clerical error and widespread bureaurcatic idiocy, means that you are automatically guilty in the eyes of the court as well as the entire judiciary system.

I already stated that is not true. I'm not denying it, it is a simple fact. The jury is to assume your innocence unless guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Not the police or prosecutors. You completely avoided that fact.

You instead chose to attempt to discredit me with accusations of racism and bias, when you 1) do not know me or anything about me, and 2) made an assumption based on the fact that I knew your racial status, which you provided. This also begs the question as to whether you assume I'm white, and are thereby unwarrantedly assigning "racist" attributes to me.
In short, you, sir, have made assumptions about me being racist and pompous, and then fallaciously accused me of making assumptions about you. In addition, you failed to attack my argument. I never attacked you personally, I only admonished you to stop playing the victim card like so many people do. Indeed, your reliance upon "racist" accusations hints of "card playing" well beyond the "victim" game, again, information you yourself have provided, and in abundance supply.

Besides, this has honestly degenerated from the topic of Japanese police behavior.


BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD:

Repetition, brow beating, intimidation, insinuations of guilt, and outright manipulation are stock in trade when being questioned by the police. Fatigue is the most devastating weapon of the interrogator and the key to obtaining confessions--90 percent of cases that go to trial involve confessions, and they are almost never overturned.

This is the same thing as in the United States. Although they can only hold you for a certain amount of time, unless you are placed under arrest, U.S. cops will try anything they possibly can to get a confession. Despite enormous errors, the TV show, Law & Order shows how the police will do whatevery they can get away with as often as possible.

Cops are the same in Japan, England, the United States, anywhere. They aren't often the brightest or most honest members of society. Often they are kids you grew up with who were trouble makers and thought a badge would give them enough authority to bully people. They'll get away with what they can. That doesn't mean you are presumed guilty by the entire legal system. Guilt or innocence in Western/English style courtrooms are usually determined by the jury. It all depends on what the jury is to presume from the beginning of a trial.

[mad pierrot]

Japan is finally set to get one in 2008. Up until now, they've never had one.


Too bad, the jury system has gotta be one of the "worst best ideas" ever....