Silk Road forums
Discussion => Security => Topic started by: raven92 on April 14, 2012, 10:20 am
-
Police officers working undercover have exceptions from certain criminal laws. For instance, law enforcement officers directly engaged in the enforcement of controlled substance laws are exempt from laws surrounding the purchase, possession, sales or use of illegal substances.
This means that there's no way to identify an undercover officer based on their willingness or refusal to use an illegal drug. Reverse stings are common in the enforcement of controlled substance laws. In a reverse sting operation, a police officer sells drugs that have previously been confiscated and then arrest the buyer.
- 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) of the U.S. Code.
-
Police officers working undercover have exceptions from certain criminal laws. For instance, law enforcement officers directly engaged in the enforcement of controlled substance laws are exempt from laws surrounding the purchase, possession, sales or use of illegal substances.
This means that there's no way to identify an undercover officer based on their willingness or refusal to use an illegal drug. Reverse stings are common in the enforcement of controlled substance laws. In a reverse sting operation, a police officer sells drugs that have previously been confiscated and then arrest the buyer.
- 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) of the U.S. Code.
I used to work for a law firm and was told that fortunately here in England we have much stricter regulations concerning entrapment than in the US.
As with everything though, it's important to put yourselves in the shoes of law enforcement and consider if it would be an effective use of resources to have to continually create sellers accounts on SR at $150 dollars every time just to send a junkie down for personal quantities of drugs.
I don't deal with this aspect of SR but I have seen something of the war on drugs in real life and the sellers who use boats in the dead of night and sell on the street have tonnes of the stuff - we are simply a drop in the ocean by comparison.
This is not to mention the fact it would be trivially easy for someone to arrange for delivery to an address other than their own which of course you should do for any kind of contraband.
V.
-
Yeah, don't think that 5-O have any legal restraints on them. Police IN THEORY have restrictions and regulations about what they can and can't do but at the end of the day if they want to do some shady shit in order to put you in a cell then it's your word against theirs. And if they do catch you red handed and want to stick some more shit on you unless you are extremely smart or have a very good lawyer then who the fuck are they gunna believe? It ain't gunna be you the criminal my friend.
-
Yes they can and do all the time! In the US anyway. Never trust a police officer there only out to make an arrest, the really don't give a shit about the law there on military mode these days........good guys vs bad guys.....were the bad guys....whatever. Yes they break the law all the time and many many many our under investigation there selves. It takes a "special" person to become LE and I don't like that personality type.. Hey Mr Clean! your dirty now too!
-
The law is just a paper.
What I can say? Here the only one is the law of survival.
-
Okay so based off this law....
Cops are allowed to sell drugs, for instance, here on SR, even drugs they got from the evidence locker of a trial that is already done with.... and they can sell the drugs as undercovers and collect our data.
So now we know for a fact that cops undercover are legally allowed to sell us drugs here..
-
Okay so based off this law....
Cops are allowed to sell drugs, for instance, here on SR, even drugs they got from the evidence locker of a trial that is already done with.... and they can sell the drugs as undercovers and collect our data.
So now we know for a fact that cops undercover are legally allowed to sell us drugs here..
In theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs. In addition they would obviously have to spend $150 and create a new seller account each time as the scam would only work for as long they held off on making arrests - it would be beyond the resources of any State Police and would have to be run at a Federal Level -the only people they would catch would be a handful of users who bought drugs in personal quantities - vendors would still be safe.
Put yourself in the position of the FBI - would it really be worth your while when you could net ten times the amount of actual drug dealers through conventional reverse stings for far less trouble?
Having said that I think it's good and right we are talking about this and don't think we're automatically safe in our Ivory Tower - LEO can access SR and our forums just as easily as we can!
V.
-
In theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect, at least as far as US law is concerned. It is not entrapment if you do something that you were likely going to do anyway. The undercover LE did not force you, coerce you, or otherwise persuade you to do something illegal that you would not have done otherwise.
-
I try to never underestimate the idiocy of law enforcement, but I have a hard time believing there are cops selling drugs on here. What happens if somebody OD's on something they bought from a cop?
-
I try to never underestimate the idiocy of law enforcement, but I have a hard time believing there are cops selling drugs on here. What happens if somebody OD's on something they bought from a cop?
Worst-case scenario? The monkeys in congress go batshit crazy and make an unbearable noise about how SR is a complete danger to society and must be shut down. Whatever level of heed that the DEA, FBI, Interpol, and friends are paying to this site would probably go up tenfold. Sure, the cop would be (most likely) quite fucked, but I don't think it would end well for us, either.
-
90% of the time they use informants and snitches from other cities that they have raided or someone that is willing to work with them for money.52 of us got rounded up for trafficking Hashish in the 90's seems the person that got everyone pinched was an ex biker that ran out of money and needed to help the cops out because he was up on attempted murder charges and wanted a free ride while the rest of us done his time
-
They will lie, cheat and steal to get you into the system. They think whatever they have to do to get you to "stop hurting yourself" they will do.
Complete FUCKED way of being. But hey, it's a paycheck right? Ruining peoples lives and claiming authority over others for money. If ever confronted, say having just bought from an undercover, question every single question.
Don't be afraid to ask: By what authority? Don't be afraid to counter every question with another question. Become a broken record. Never resist of course. Your safety is your primary concern. And always stay respectful, as much as they don't seem to deserve it.
-
If ever confronted, say having just bought from an undercover, question every single question.
Don't be afraid to ask: By what authority? Don't be afraid to counter every question with another question.
Alternative opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
tl;dw: Don't ever talk to the police about anything ever.
-
If ever confronted, say having just bought from an undercover, question every single question.
Don't be afraid to ask: By what authority? Don't be afraid to counter every question with another question.
Alternative opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
tl;dw: Don't ever talk to the police about anything ever.
I'm so pleased you posted this - it's an excellent video. I suggest you also watch the video from the Police Officer too, it provides some excellent insight too.
V.
-
If ever confronted, say having just bought from an undercover, question every single question.
Don't be afraid to ask: By what authority? Don't be afraid to counter every question with another question.
Alternative opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
tl;dw: Don't ever talk to the police about anything ever.
I'm so pleased you posted this - it's an excellent video. I suggest you also watch the video from the Police Officer too, it provides some excellent insight too.
V.
Will check the link.
Don't confuse questioning authority with starting a discussion. Never TELL THEM ANYTHING. Of course! Don't ever assume you have to say a damn thing. I just like to crack the belief system that we have to answer to ANYONE! And personally, I find the notion of educating others, even LE, even if it has no effect, I like playing the game. This only works if you know yourself as equal to all others, and never BELOW.
-
I'm so pleased you posted this - it's an excellent video. I suggest you also watch the video from the Police Officer too, it provides some excellent insight too.
I think the link I posted has both parts of the talk. I can't watch it right now to check. But yes, each part is great and the whole video should be essential viewing for everyone on this website :)
-
I'm so pleased you posted this - it's an excellent video. I suggest you also watch the video from the Police Officer too, it provides some excellent insight too.
I think the link I posted has both parts of the talk. I can't watch it right now to check. But yes, each part is great and the whole video should be essential viewing for everyone on this website :)
Yea that video is dead accurate, scary and extremely sad. But its the truth.
-
Its soooo true! Its hard Its scary and their going to be telling you to make it easy on yourself if you just cooperate............DON'T COOPERATE!!!!! And demand your Miranda Rights which by law they don't have to remind you anymore:( oh yeah and now since last week expect a strip search....fuckers!
-
The best way to identify an undercover is by means of social engineering.
Undercover officers are never well known in the drug trade so if you are not familiar with the name and no one else is red flags should come up.
Also people who inform will usually ask for product under very strange circumstances (ie you just sold them a bag and they responded asking for 10).
You will easily identify undercover officers by following a simple rule if it doesn't sound correct or if its too good to be true avoid it.
Also do not place violence on a high list of priorities and you will remain off of DEA radar. This is true especially in respects to law enforcement.
-
Okay so based off this law....
Cops are allowed to sell drugs, for instance, here on SR, even drugs they got from the evidence locker of a trial that is already done with.... and they can sell the drugs as undercovers and collect our data.
So now we know for a fact that cops undercover are legally allowed to sell us drugs here..
I really disagree with this line of thinking. No, I'm not schooled in law, but "being allowed to" and "using it in court" are not the same thing.
What I care about is what can be used against me in court, not the intel they gather on me without a shred of any other evidence to back it up. Unless they're giving me drugs (or lookalike drugs) in some manner of controlled delivery, then I never received a damn thing, no matter how many times they sent, and furthermore, I never ordered, nor had any knowledge of the packages they sent. And they can't prove otherwise.
What kind of cop is gonna set up shop in the road? A Federal Agent? Young, local cop gung-ho about his new career? Confidential Informant? What if the Federal Agent sells to the undercover local posing as a buyer, or vice versa? Or they could both sell to kids, and the kids die... There'd be a public fiasco that would completely eclipse the shit storm from operation Fast & Furious.
They could send fake drugs to avoid a public safety issue, since they can't secure the chain of evidence without a controlled delivery. Ok, I get the fake drugs, and realize they're fake. What would I do? I'd post my experience with that vendor here, just like everyone else does.
Or they could ship once, and tear my fucking place apart. And find nothing. As soon as I was released and done being questioned, I'd come here and let you all know about it. And I would provide details.
Maybe a cop selling on the Road could just ask all his buyers if they're cops, and since they'd have to answer honestly, the issue of one cop selling to another might be avoided. And they could coordinate better with one another.
And they could also require age-verification to make sure they didn't mail high potency drugs to kids.
Yes, I'm talking tongue in cheek on the last two points.
I'm sure they're trying to come up with a plan... But I really don't think selling drugs here is it. If someone can lead me down a path that makes sense (that cops are selling drugs on Silk Road) I'll bite. I know I haven't thought of everything.
Not all "cops" are stupid jack-booted thugs. Some are highly trained, intelligent, and good at their careers, and the above points are not lost on the brightest
-
- isn't it simply they break whatever laws they can get away with?!
-
Police officers working undercover have exceptions from certain criminal laws. For instance, law enforcement officers directly engaged in the enforcement of controlled substance laws are exempt from laws surrounding the purchase, possession, sales or use of illegal substances.
This means that there's no way to identify an undercover officer based on their willingness or refusal to use an illegal drug. Reverse stings are common in the enforcement of controlled substance laws. In a reverse sting operation, a police officer sells drugs that have previously been confiscated and then arrest the buyer.
- 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) of the U.S. Code.
They can't do drugs while undercover, defense lawyer would throw out all their 'evidence' as they'd be high at the time.
If you read any of the organized biker busts, they blew the cocaine or meth away pretending to snort it, they faked inhaling, or so they claimed.
It also depends which country you live in but generally no, a cop has to answer to the court for anything illegal they do including luring online hackers into buying stolen credit cards ect. Just look up Sabu's recent IRC logs when people accused him of not doing anything anymore except convincing other people to do dangerous hacks. For good reason, he was an informant by then
-
Along with many other reasons why it's implausible that LE is actively selling drugs on SR, many vendors are also shipping international. I'm pretty confident that this is a real no-go for LE as it could cause problems between countries (not to mention that the sell is completely useless, as the changes of LE in different countries cooperating on busting small time buyers is pretty slim).
-
Tell them you want to speak to Your lawyer and thats it don't ask for a drink because they can take the bottle for DNA don't talk at all don't say a word except I want to speak to my lawyer all conversations are recorded once you ask for your lawyer they have to stop questions till the lawyer arrives or they are breaking your legal right to counsel for representation
DON'T SAY ANYTHING DON'T SAY ANYTHING DON'T SAY ANYTHING DON'T SAY ANYTHING DON'T SAY ANYTHING DON'T SAY ANYTHING
-
Yes.
But, in the situation you describe, there's a lot of paperwork, and then, due to the magic of paper, undercover work is not breaking the law, it is "participation in an otherwise illegal activity."
Also, DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
Council of the Inspectors General, Guidelines on Undercover Operations
Please note the source and download with appropriate anonymizing measures.
hxxp://www. ignet. gov/pande/standards/invprg1211appj.pdf
1. Justification: No official shall recommend or approve participation by an undercover employee in otherwise illegal activity unless the participation is justified:
a. To obtain information or evidence necessary for the success of the investigation and not reasonably available without participation in the otherwise illegal activity;
b. To establish or maintain credibility of a cover identity; or
c. To prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others.
2. Minimization: The OIGs shall take reasonable steps to minimize the participation of an undercover employee in any otherwise illegal activity.
3. Prohibitions: An undercover employee shall not:
a. Participate in any act of violence except in self-defense or defense of others;
b. Initiate or instigate any plan to commit criminal acts except in accordance with Section V (concerning avoidance of entrapment) below; or
c. Participate in conduct that would constitute unlawful investigative techniques (e.g., illegal wiretapping, illegal mail openings, breaking and entering, or trespass amounting to an illegal search).
4. Self-Defense: Nothing in these Guidelines prohibits an undercover employee from taking reasonable measures of self-defense in an emergency to protect his or her own life or the lives of others against wrongful force. Such measures, if taken, shall be reported to the appropriate prosecutor, the Inspector General, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division as soon as possible.
5. Authorization:
a. All undercover operations and activities that contemplate participation in otherwise illegal activity must be approved, at a minimum, by a Special Agent- in-Charge (or equivalent). Individual IGs may determine that a higher level of authority is required in their office. This approval shall, if so specified, constitute authorization of:
(1) Otherwise illegal activity that is a misdemeanor or similar minor crime under Federal, state, or local law;
(2) Consensual monitoring, even if a crime under local law;
(3) The purchase of stolen or contraband goods;
(4) The delivery or sale of stolen property that cannot be traced to the rightful owner;
(5) The controlled delivery of drugs that will not enter commerce;
(6) The payment of bribes that do not fall within the sensitive circumstances set forth in Section IV, Subpart B above;
(7) The making of false representations to third parties in concealment of personal identity or the true ownership of a proprietary (but not any statement under oath or the penalties of perjury, which must be authorized pursuant to subparagraph (b) below); and,
(8) Conducting no more than five money laundering transactions, not to exceed a maximum aggregate amount of $1 million.
b. Participation in otherwise illegal activity that is a felony or its equivalent under Federal, state, or local law, and which is not otherwise accepted under Section IV, Subpart B above, requires authorization by the IG after the URC’s review.
c. Participation in otherwise illegal activity that involves a significant risk of violence or physical injury requires authorization by the IG after the URC’s review.
d. If an undercover employee believes it to be necessary and appropriate under the standards set out in paragraph H(1) above, to participate in otherwise illegal activity that was not foreseen or anticipated, every effort should be made to consult with the AIGI, who shall seek emergency interim authority from the IG, and review by the URC if possible, or, if necessary, may provide emergency authorization. If consultation is impossible, and the undercover employee concludes that there is an immediate and grave threat to life, physical safety, or property, the undercover employee may participate in the otherwise illegal activity, so long as he or she does not take part in, and makes every reasonable effort to prevent any act of violence. A report to the SAC shall be made as soon as possible, who shall submit a written report to the AIGI, who shall promptly inform the Undercover Review Committee. A decision by an undercover employee to participate in otherwise illegal activity under this subsection may be retroactively authorized if appropriate.
e. If an undercover operation results in violence in the course of criminal activity, and an undercover employee, informant, or cooperating witness has participated in any manner in the criminal activity, the AIGI shall immediately inform the appropriate prosecutor and the IG, who shall inform the Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Criminal Division as soon as possible.
I. INTERIM/EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION
1. In a situation where prior written approval for an undercover operation is required pursuant to Section IV, Subparts B and C, the AIGI may orally approve an undercover operation when he or she believes that a significant investigative opportunity would be lost if time were taken to prepare a written authorization. However, the written authorization must still be completed by the AIGI, along with the justification for the oral approval and then forwarded to the IG within 2 business days.
2. OIGs must establish internal policy to address emergency interim authorization procedures. These procedures are to provide for an expeditious review and authorization of a proposed undercover operation. Before providing authorization in these situations, the involved OIG shall attempt consultation with the Chairperson of the URC as well as with any appropriate prosecutor and FBI manager.
3. Online undercover operations may be authorized in writing by the AIGI to continue for a period not to exceed 30 days if it is essential to continue online contact with a subject, in order to either maintain credibility or avoid permanent loss of contact with a subject during the period of time in which an application for an online undercover operation is being prepared and submitted for approval. If approved, the undercover employee maintaining online contact during this period must:
a. Maintain an accurate recording of all online communication;
b. Avoid otherwise illegal activity;
c. Maintain as limited an online profile as possible consistent with the need to accomplish the objectives stated above;
d. Avoid physical contact with subjects;
e. Take all necessary and reasonable actions during the interim period to protect potential victims and prevent serious criminal activity if online contact reveals significant and imminent threat to third parties, commercial establishments, or government entities.
-
Okay so based off this law....
Cops are allowed to sell drugs, for instance, here on SR, even drugs they got from the evidence locker of a trial that is already done with.... and they can sell the drugs as undercovers and collect our data.
So now we know for a fact that cops undercover are legally allowed to sell us drugs here..
I really disagree with this line of thinking. No, I'm not schooled in law, but "being allowed to" and "using it in court" are not the same thing.
What I care about is what can be used against me in court, not the intel they gather on me without a shred of any other evidence to back it up. Unless they're giving me drugs (or lookalike drugs) in some manner of controlled delivery, then I never received a damn thing, no matter how many times they sent, and furthermore, I never ordered, nor had any knowledge of the packages they sent. And they can't prove otherwise.
What kind of cop is gonna set up shop in the road? A Federal Agent? Young, local cop gung-ho about his new career? Confidential Informant? What if the Federal Agent sells to the undercover local posing as a buyer, or vice versa? Or they could both sell to kids, and the kids die... There'd be a public fiasco that would completely eclipse the shit storm from operation Fast & Furious.
They could send fake drugs to avoid a public safety issue, since they can't secure the chain of evidence without a controlled delivery. Ok, I get the fake drugs, and realize they're fake. What would I do? I'd post my experience with that vendor here, just like everyone else does.
Or they could ship once, and tear my fucking place apart. And find nothing. As soon as I was released and done being questioned, I'd come here and let you all know about it. And I would provide details.
Maybe a cop selling on the Road could just ask all his buyers if they're cops, and since they'd have to answer honestly, the issue of one cop selling to another might be avoided. And they could coordinate better with one another.
- it doesn't matter whether it would be used in court or not
- LE aren't honest and will use and abuse who and what they want to get info
- i don't speak from experience but i imagine they are prepared to do things that are never going to make it to court -get their foot in the door as such, buying intel
buying names and "trust" and make up the "story" as they go along.
-
Police will just do what they have to to get what they want.
Will they completely fabricate a charge against you? Will they bust you for a small amount and then frame you for more to pressure you into giving them info? These two scenarios are unlikely, but they do happen.
What is much more likely is that they will do one of the following; Use excessive force against you and then deny that it ever happened/claim that you were being aggressive/acting dangerously - OR - Deceive/trick you about what the laws are to either force you into a situation that you didn't have to be in (like getting searched) or to make you self incriminate by saying something stupid.
You have to think, if a police officer has been doing an investigation into drugs for years, and has been trying to nail a dealer for ages, devoting all his energy and time to it - and then some officer comes into the office and says they've got evidence on you but they gained it by selling crack to addicts and beating the fuck out of some guy, do you think the leader is likely to think "hmm well this evidence has been gained by illegal means therefore we cannot continue with this investigation and I will hand my buddy here over to internal affairs" or "oh well, we'll just deny that that ever happened and lie about how we obtained the evidence."
I think its something we'd all do in our own way
-
In theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect, at least as far as US law is concerned. It is not entrapment if you do something that you were likely going to do anyway. The undercover LE did not force you, coerce you, or otherwise persuade you to do something illegal that you would not have done otherwise.
Spot on!
Sadly too many people think that the police are powerless idiots. In all honesty: the police we meet on the street are the foot soldiers and many not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. But the police force as a whole include some very intelligent people and some very streetwise people. The only fool in the equation is the person that thinks they can outsmart the scientists, mathematicians, detectives, and informants employed by the authorities.
-
In theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect, at least as far as US law is concerned. It is not entrapment if you do something that you were likely going to do anyway. The undercover LE did not force you, coerce you, or otherwise persuade you to do something illegal that you would not have done otherwise.
Spot on!
Sadly too many people think that the police are powerless idiots. In all honesty: the police we meet on the street are the foot soldiers and many not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. But the police force as a whole include some very intelligent people and some very streetwise people. The only fool in the equation is the person that thinks they can outsmart the scientists, mathematicians, detectives, and informants employed by the authorities.
It would seem the law is rather different in the UK to the US. I actually would prefer to face US Justice as you have an unmitigated right to silence, including a right against self incrimination. You also can be compelled to hand over your password or face a prison sentence. God Bless America!
V.
-
In theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect, at least as far as US law is concerned. It is not entrapment if you do something that you were likely going to do anyway. The undercover LE did not force you, coerce you, or otherwise persuade you to do something illegal that you would not have done otherwise.
Spot on!
Sadly too many people think that the police are powerless idiots. In all honesty: the police we meet on the street are the foot soldiers and many not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. But the police force as a whole include some very intelligent people and some very streetwise people. The only fool in the equation is the person that thinks they can outsmart the scientists, mathematicians, detectives, and informants employed by the authorities.
It would seem the law is rather different in the UK to the US. I actually would prefer to face US Justice as you have an unmitigated right to silence, including a right against self incrimination. You also can be compelled to hand over your password or face a prison sentence. God Bless America!
V.
Do you really mean that? The UK sentencing rational is directed much more towards rehabilitation, while it's all about punishment in the USA. In the UK you'll get about six years for low level dealing, served in a relatively safe prison and you'll only serve half if you behave yourself. In the USA you'll get 30 years in some hell hole where you'll probably get murdered by gangsters.
-
In theory yes. In practice there'd be a number of legal obstacles to overcome - a good lawyer would argue this is textbook entrapment, even if the officer himself/herself couldn't be held liable for dealing in drugs.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect, at least as far as US law is concerned. It is not entrapment if you do something that you were likely going to do anyway. The undercover LE did not force you, coerce you, or otherwise persuade you to do something illegal that you would not have done otherwise.
Spot on!
Sadly too many people think that the police are powerless idiots. In all honesty: the police we meet on the street are the foot soldiers and many not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. But the police force as a whole include some very intelligent people and some very streetwise people. The only fool in the equation is the person that thinks they can outsmart the scientists, mathematicians, detectives, and informants employed by the authorities.
It would seem the law is rather different in the UK to the US. I actually would prefer to face US Justice as you have an unmitigated right to silence, including a right against self incrimination. You also can be compelled to hand over your password or face a prison sentence. God Bless America!
V.
Do you really mean that? The UK sentencing rational is directed much more towards rehabilitation, while it's all about punishment in the USA. In the UK you'll get about six years for low level dealing, served in a relatively safe prison and you'll only serve half if you behave yourself. In the USA you'll get 30 years in some hell hole where you'll probably get murdered by gangsters.
It would seem from what you say that sentencing is more harsh in the USA. Conditions in Prisons are certainly more severe. At the moment the UK Government are considering whether or not to extradite someone to the USA as they are concerned that solitary confinement would amount to cruel and inhuman treatment (despite the fact this is routinely done to prisoners in the US.)
This said the cut and thrust of this thread and what I was saying focused on the methods used to detect crime and put people behind bars in the first place. Police in the UK use trap houses and cars for instance to find out the locations of fences but the individual thief cannot be held liable.
However if a person refuses to answer questions posed during Police Interview, adverse inferences can be drawn from their silence by a Jury should the case come to trial. The Caution given by an arresting office is worded along the lines of:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if, when question, you do not mention something which you later rely on in court."
When charged with a crime a defendant also has to instruct their lawyer to make a "defence statement" which will summarise the basis for the defence before any evidence from the Prosecution is released.
In my opinion, this unfairly weights the case in favour of the Prosecution as if the defence is unwilling or unable to disclose details of key witnesses or evidence they wish to present at trial, then the Prosecution is under no obligation to disclose all the evidence against the defendant before the arrive in court.
If conversely they do make a full disclosure then the Crown Prosecution Service as we call them in the UK and the Police have all the time between charge and trial to interview witnesses and persuade them not to testify or try to find contradictions in their statements, to analyse and debunk the defence's rebuttals etc. Bear in mind that the whole time this is happening the Defendant themselves may be sitting in jail not knowing how revealing their hand has weakened their position and be hit with an "ambush" Prosecution when things do come to court.
Compare and contrast with the US where you have an absolute and inalienable right for no inferences to be drawn from your silence and that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Moreover if evidence is obtained illegally you have a right to have it ruled as inadmissable by a Judge (once again this is not the case in the UK).
I know what I'd prefer but sadly I cannot afford to move to the US - God Bless Uncle Sam!
V.
-
The Caution given by an arresting office is worded along the lines of:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if, when question, you do not mention something which you later rely on in court."
When charged with a crime a defendant also has to instruct their lawyer to make a "defence statement" which will summarise the basis for the defence before any evidence from the Prosecution is released.
...
If conversely they do make a full disclosure then the Crown Prosecution Service as we call them in the UK and the Police have all the time between charge and trial to interview witnesses and persuade them not to testify or try to find contradictions in their statements, to analyse and debunk the defence's rebuttals etc. Bear in mind that the whole time this is happening the Defendant themselves may be sitting in jail not knowing how revealing their hand has weakened their position and be hit with an "ambush" Prosecution when things do come to court.
Compare and contrast with the US where you have an absolute and inalienable right for no inferences to be drawn from your silence and that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Moreover if evidence is obtained illegally you have a right to have it ruled as inadmissable by a Judge (once again this is not the case in the UK).
Thanks for sharing this. I have a bad habit of accidentally learning about American's rights and laws online and assuming they apply in the UK.
-
When charged with a crime a defendant also has to instruct their lawyer to make a "defence statement" which will summarise the basis for the defence before any evidence from the Prosecution is released.
In my opinion, this unfairly weights the case in favour of the Prosecution as if the defence is unwilling or unable to disclose details of key witnesses or evidence they wish to present at trial, then the Prosecution is under no obligation to disclose all the evidence against the defendant before the arrive in court.
I am sure that is the other way round and the prosecution has to lay out their attack statement and release all evidence and unused evidence (I believe within 'reasonable' time) before the defendant has to make a defence statement. After this is seen I believe the defendant gets 28 days to prepare their defence statement. The prosecution will of course do their best to break the rules and put the defandant in the weakest possible position.
-
When charged with a crime a defendant also has to instruct their lawyer to make a "defence statement" which will summarise the basis for the defence before any evidence from the Prosecution is released.
In my opinion, this unfairly weights the case in favour of the Prosecution as if the defence is unwilling or unable to disclose details of key witnesses or evidence they wish to present at trial, then the Prosecution is under no obligation to disclose all the evidence against the defendant before the arrive in court.
I am sure that is the other way round and the prosecution has to lay out their attack statement and release all evidence and unused evidence (I believe within 'reasonable' time) before the defendant has to make a defence statement. After this is seen I believe the defendant gets 28 days to prepare their defence statement. The prosecution will of course do their best to break the rules and put the defandant in the weakest possible position.
No, the defence statement is submitted after an initial disclosure by the Prosecution which is a very brief summary of the case against the Defendant. Only then is any evidence (if any) released. See : http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/disclosure_manual/disclosure_manual_chapter_15/ - The deadlie for submitting a defence statement is 14 days for a Magistrate's Courts and 28 days for a Crown Court. It is not obligatory in either case but is considered a Civic Responsibility similar to jury duty - certainly a person cannot be held in contempt of court for failing to submit one. This said, it is designed to encourage pre trial disclosure of the defence's case - naturally only your Solicitor can decide what information is best put into a Defence statement and accordingly what evidence should be requested.
Anyone living in the UK would do well to have a quick read through CPS guidelines on their site; hopefully you'll never need to have a working knowledge of the law but it can't hurt to do so. :-)
V.
-
Don't underestimate LE. You can bet your ass with all the attention this place is getting they're investing millions of dollars into shutting it down. What would be an effective way to shut down SR in the USA? Collect information of all the buyers you can, and arrest them all at once. Problem solved. That being said, I have noticed quite a few vendors who are very suspicious in their postings and dealings here. Ones that say they're looking to supply bulk to other vendors, ect. Not to point anyone out, but there are vendors collecting your address for a bust, could be tomorrow, could be a year from now, they're just information collecting.
Assuming that there are thousands of buyers and that most buys on SR are for personal use amounts, arresting all buyers would be a fantastic waste of LE resources, time and money. The real danger here is for people buying trafficking amounts. I wouldn't be sending someone I didn't know and trust my address for that kind of delivery, encrypted or not.