Reply to post: Re: Taking back some of what I said..

Man jailed for 3 days after Texas cops confuse cat litter for meth

Kiwi Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Taking back some of what I said..

That particular judge is unlikely to ever be released.

I don't know how I feel about that. On one hand he put innocent people inside, I guess a number of them, and needs to repay that debt - and it's pretty damned impossible. On the other, people can change, and they can change significantly and quickly even if the catalyst is selfish motives (in this case "I miss my authority" and or "I miss my money" and or "I miss my expensive toys" with a distant maybe "I miss my family"). I'd love to see a system where if you could convince enough people of decent change, you can get out very early whereas if you can only show that you've not changed, you stay. Of course that would need our prisons to move from punishment to rehab, and would also mean the victims can only be a part of decision (lets face it, victims especially of nastier crimes can hold a massive grudge, and a really harmful crime can come from one stupid decision where the outcome is completely unexpected - eg who ever thinks that one extra drink will impair them enough that it causes them to crash and kill someome? (no I don't excuse drunk driving and think that by the time of a 3rd offense lifetime driving bans should be a real possibility! (yes I know that sounds hypocritical)

Corruption in the USA is at least as bad as any west african country, just slightly less blatent in most cases.

There are many forms of corruption. NZ often gets voted quite highly if not at the top of the "least corrupt", yet our cops can be among the worst when it comes to things like evidence tampering, witness tampering and various other things. And a big part of that, AIUI, is that they're given significant bonuses for convictions. When you can get a (I believe but could be wrong and don't have a source handy) $20K bonus for a murder conviction, that's quite an inducement to maybe ignore some of the evidence that can show someone is guilty, and perhaps get that one tiny partial print promoted to the jury as if it's a full set of finger/palm/foot prints as well as signed confession, and a full DNA lot as well. DNA doesn't match? Well, we'll just say that no DNA tests were performed, then the defence doesn't have to know about that.

NZ cops take bribes from crims/gangs etc? Almost never, maybe not even 1 in a thousand. Tamper with evidence to help get their conviction? That may be a different story..

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019