Judge throws out confessionFollow

Why would an innocent confess to something and give exact details about where they hid the body if they they didn't do it?

Skirting, perhaps, but not quite. And I don't have the gym physique to match.

I know of the phenomenon of false confessions under duress, and I can see why it should apply. People are stupid. Granted.

But nobody can be that stupid and unlucky to falsely confess that they killed someone and tell where they hid the body, and find out that the body was indeed hidden where they said. I'm not sure the odds of someone guessing correctly are even worth mentioning.

Utterly meaningless. He has zero chance of not being convicted. Zero. If Christ popped into the courtroom and told the jury that the guy didn't actually do it, he'd still be found guilty.

Find something less completely meaningless to be upset about.

I'm sure gbaji feels the same about the whole 'date rape' issue as well.

It's okay, we understand that you are not smart enough to grasp the fundamental flaw in your argument that everyone else caught right off the bat.

No, Gbaji believes what he says on the date rape thing, and accepts the constant pokes at him as signs of your ignorance. At least, that's probably how he views it in his head. I don't agree with that whole "No marks = no rape" idea at all, so I have no clue, honestly.



Which flaw in my argument are you refering to? (pick one): the one in regards to false confessions under duress? Or perhaps the one where it's current standard practice to dismiss anything between when a lawyer is called and when he is presented? Or the underlying flaw of it all that the 5th protects you from incriminating yourself involuntarily?

I'm not missing these, I'm just not of the opinion that the middle one should be kept as is. Tell me to get out of my own country for not agreeing with it, or tell me to exercise my 1st Miranda right and GTFO, I really don't give a flip. I personally don't like cases where the court system is treated like chess. It's an opinion. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm too stupid to not recognize the inherit problems with that line of thinking.

Policies don't change if people stop trying to think outside of the box. If you're content with things as they are, you're welcome to it.

Very true...but he did keep talking...so isn't it his own fault still? He could have just shut up and waited, but he didn't. I have to agree that he screwed himself here.

Once that step is crossed, once that right is denied anything and everything collected was inadmissable. Doesn't matter if the guy started bragging about murdering the little girl.

Althrun see's this as unjust and silly. He is just failing to see why it is so vitally important, even if it means cases like this where evidence damning a guilty man has to be set aside.

No it doesn't. It all depends on whether or not you think cops should need to follow the rules or not. You may think it's the greater moral conundrum you've presented, but that's because you're wrong.

disagreement != inabilty to see. So I want some way of being able to have both a just and fair system *and* not have such technicalities even a factor (and officers following procedure always is not an option for rebuttal. I'm talking about some way so that such procedures aren't needed.).

If that makes me an idiotic blind ponce who is so full of himself that he doesn't listen to others, or some admin-obsessed nutjob who thinks that a lawyer consists of lines on a website...... eh.

Ok, you caught me. I'm actually Niobia's and gbaji's love child, come to seek revenge against you all with inane ramblings.

I'll leave you to figure out who the mother was in that relationship.

Its cute when you are wrong and angry!

Lash out baby!