Police have to collect proof, whether it works for or against a suspect. Other suspects are possible, too. That follows directly from the general presumption of innocence. Only the judge can end that presumption, with his verdict.
Police aren’t prosecutors in the US. But they work closely with the district attorneys who do prosecute. As in they provide the evidence to them and provide their recount of the situation and circumstances to the prosecutor and if it goes to trial can be called to testify against you.
Additionally, many police programs incentivize or measure an officers efficiency based on the number of arrests or tickets they produce.
Often since the prosecutors and police work towards the same goal of securing a conviction, we lump them together even though they are different agencies.
The State is there to find and punish the right people, not to go after a random person they selected.
On most countries, the equivalent to a prosecutor will insist that the police works correctly, and will throw away cases if some evidence appear that the suspect is innocent.
One of the most critical measures in the preliminary proceedings is questioning the alleged crime participants and witnesses to what happened. No statement should be made without legal counsel at this stage (especially when the police open up to the suspect to interrogate them as an “accused”). Investigators are trained to ask questions that could put the suspect in a bind and are increasingly success-oriented. This often results in hasty, ill-considered and incriminating statements, which can be used against the accused in the main proceedings.
Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.
What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.
And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?
German courts aren’t special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that’s the same everywhere, but it’s not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it’s specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.
It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can’t be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.
Police have to collect proof, whether it works for or against a suspect. Other suspects are possible, too. That follows directly from the general presumption of innocence. Only the judge can end that presumption, with his verdict.
Btw police don’t argue in court.
(Germany here)
Police aren’t prosecutors in the US. But they work closely with the district attorneys who do prosecute. As in they provide the evidence to them and provide their recount of the situation and circumstances to the prosecutor and if it goes to trial can be called to testify against you.
Additionally, many police programs incentivize or measure an officers efficiency based on the number of arrests or tickets they produce.
Often since the prosecutors and police work towards the same goal of securing a conviction, we lump them together even though they are different agencies.
Even that “prosecutor” name is bad.
The State is there to find and punish the right people, not to go after a random person they selected.
On most countries, the equivalent to a prosecutor will insist that the police works correctly, and will throw away cases if some evidence appear that the suspect is innocent.
I call that very unethical.
Me too.
This site says:
Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.
Some random lawyer.
Again: police records and collects stuff. They do not argue in court.
What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.
And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?
German courts aren’t special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that’s the same everywhere, but it’s not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it’s specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.
It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can’t be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.
They don’t. And the way the US courts work is almost exclusive to them.