From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The NYPD situation (was: Say it ain't so)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:40:26 GMT

In <1992Dec15.233606.17838@bony1.bony.com> (Jake Livni) writes:
>In <BypM4v.9qv@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>>In <ByI12J.MwM@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>>>jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>>>>The unusually low regard that many minorities in NYC and elsewhere
>>>>>have for their Police makes effective prosecution involving police
>>>>>testimony extremely difficult.

>>>>Jake, I challenge you to spend a week in the criminal courthouse
>>>>on Centre Street, testing this theory.  If you still believe it
>>>>after that, I'll buy you lunch.

>>>Stevens, I challenge you to spend a week in the Rosenbaum home in
>>>Melbourne and try to convince them that effective prosecution is the
>>>norm for justice in the USA. (*)  If you succeed, I will buy you lunch.

>>But Jake, I never said the Rosenbaums could be made to feel this way.
>>You, however, have repeatedly asserted that police testimony can't
>>yield convictions.  

>I said that "effective prosecution involving police testimony [is]
>extremely difficult", not impossible.  I still feel this way.

Which is bull, since it happens all the time.

>>This hurts, because clients of mine are in prison
>>right now, owing to police testimony and nothing else.

>If your clients have been tried and convicted, then they are in prison
>because of things that they have done, not because of police
>testimony.  Important point, that one.

If you believe this, then you don't even understand the topic under
discussion.  What happens at a trial does NOT change the facts of a
case.  It is quite possible for someone to go to prison for something
they didn't do, just as it is quite possible for someone to stay out of
prison despite having committed a crime.  

Actually, it is really odd for you to say this, since the corollary to
this is that if someone has been tried and acquited, it is because they
didn't do it, not because of jury mistrust of police or racism.

But anyway, your point is wrong.  People are sent to jail or not
because of the things testified to at a trial, whether or not those
things match the truth.  It's always to be hoped that they do, but it
doesn't always work that way.

>>>I stand by my earlier statement.

>>As is your right.  Can you support it without using the Times or
>>repeating your views on the Nossair or Nelson trials?

>Sure, police in the US work under very restrictive regulations and
>have to have their testimony and evidence reach extremely high
>standards.

Is this bad?  Isn't this supposed to be one of the best things about
American democracy?  As compared to, say, the former Soviet Union?

>standards.  The acquittal of Lemrick Nelson demonstrates this.  This
>has nothing to do with my personal views on the Nelson case.

No, the acquittal of Nelson demonstrates that the jury didn't believe
that the prosecution testimony in this case proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Nelson killed Rosenbaum.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish