Missing tattoos: Altered photo lineup by Portland police draws objection(oregonlive.com)
oregonlive.com
Missing tattoos: Altered photo lineup by Portland police draws objection
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/08/the-case-of-the-missing-tattoos-altered-photo-lineup-by-portland-police-draws-objection.html
27 comments
I've had two pick out an accused while he was in the back of a cruiser filled with three guys and I failed 15 minutes after I saw the guy commit the crime. I hate to say it but even living in a community with them they all look the same to me.
Of interest: 1994 Time Magazine cover with altered mugshot of O.J. Simpson: https://people.southwestern.edu/~bednarb/su_netWorks/project...
Note that the linked article incorrectly says he was "found innocent." In fact the jury found the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof that was he guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Note that the linked article incorrectly says he was "found innocent." In fact the jury found the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof that was he guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That’s what “found innocent” means. There’s no other definition in our legal system.
See https://www.apnews.com/4a19347996e34a5f904543d1f656b04f for example.
Exactly. The default setting is "innocent until proven guilty", so if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law.
The full phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". It's specifying how people should be treated by the legal system, not stating whether they are in fact innocent or not.
>It's specifying how people should be treated by the legal system, not stating whether they are in fact innocent or not.
How is that different from
> if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law
?
How is that different from
> if someone fails to be found guilty, they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law
?
> they are inherently innocent in the eyes of the law.
No.
Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty.
The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child.
The family court will have their own fact-finding hearings, and since they work on a different burden of proof (criminal courts require "beyond all reasonable doubt", civil courts require "balance of probabilities") they may find that he did rape his child, and prevent him having any further access to the child. The earlier not-guilty verdict will carry little weight.
See this from England: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-x-files-or-the-tru...
> The difference between the civil and criminal standards of proof mean that a person who is not found guilty of doing harm to the higher criminal standard required in the Crown Court, may yet be found to have done harm on a “balance of probabilities” test, i.e. that it was more likely than not that they did it. This is often a cause of confusion and consternation about the justice system.
Or this: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/guilty-until-proven-in...
> The difference in the purpose and the approach of the two systems accounts for the way, in some cases, a person may be acquitted of having harmed a child because the jury in the Crown Court is not satisfied so that they are sure (beyond reasonable doubt) of that person’s guilt. Yet the same person may be found, by a single judge sitting without a jury in the family court, to have been liable for harm and/or likely to cause harm to the child/ren whose best interests therefore require intervention by the state to protect them.
No.
Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty.
The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child.
The family court will have their own fact-finding hearings, and since they work on a different burden of proof (criminal courts require "beyond all reasonable doubt", civil courts require "balance of probabilities") they may find that he did rape his child, and prevent him having any further access to the child. The earlier not-guilty verdict will carry little weight.
See this from England: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-x-files-or-the-tru...
> The difference between the civil and criminal standards of proof mean that a person who is not found guilty of doing harm to the higher criminal standard required in the Crown Court, may yet be found to have done harm on a “balance of probabilities” test, i.e. that it was more likely than not that they did it. This is often a cause of confusion and consternation about the justice system.
Or this: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/guilty-until-proven-in...
> The difference in the purpose and the approach of the two systems accounts for the way, in some cases, a person may be acquitted of having harmed a child because the jury in the Crown Court is not satisfied so that they are sure (beyond reasonable doubt) of that person’s guilt. Yet the same person may be found, by a single judge sitting without a jury in the family court, to have been liable for harm and/or likely to cause harm to the child/ren whose best interests therefore require intervention by the state to protect them.
In case of a (possible false) rape accusation, what kind of evidence is enough to separe a father from his children for 5 or 10 years and not enough to send him to prison?
There are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil cases in the US. For a criminal case (to send someone to prison) the plaintiff needs to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no other plausible explanation. For a civil case, the plaintiff needs to show a preponderance of evidence, meaning their version of the events is merely more likely than not. I believe the latter standard applies to custody as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Standard...
How are you defining rape?
A criminal trial may define it as "the victim has to use vigorous physical force to fight off the attacker, and if she (or he) doesn't then it's not rape". The family court may be saying that it's sex without consent.
But also jurors don't convict rapists because "he looks like a nice boy", "it'll ruin his life", "boys will be boys", "well, she was drunk", "well, she did go in that room with him". Rape is under-reported, under-recorded, under-investigated, under-prosecuted, and under-convicted.
Malicious rape allegations are rare. Abusive family members are not rare.
A criminal trial may define it as "the victim has to use vigorous physical force to fight off the attacker, and if she (or he) doesn't then it's not rape". The family court may be saying that it's sex without consent.
But also jurors don't convict rapists because "he looks like a nice boy", "it'll ruin his life", "boys will be boys", "well, she was drunk", "well, she did go in that room with him". Rape is under-reported, under-recorded, under-investigated, under-prosecuted, and under-convicted.
Malicious rape allegations are rare. Abusive family members are not rare.
I agree, but in your previous comment you were discussing a very specific case:
> Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty.
> The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child.
> Imagine a father accused of raping his child. The case goes to criminal court, and they find him not guilty.
> The mother thinks he did it, and she divorces the father and goes through the family courts to prevent him from having access to the child.
Isn't that a matter of custom, given that there is no judicial outcome that specifies complete innocence.
"Found" is a special word in the U.S. legal system. Juries are factfinders. They make findings, which means they answer yes/no questions about whether specific things happened. Juries are typically asked to make affirmative findings, and only very rarely negative ones. So a "not guilty" finding doesn't mean innocent in the sense that the jury is sure the accused didn't do it. It only means they are not sufficiently sure the accused did do it. Thus there is no such thing as being "found innocent." There is only "found not guilty."
An example why this matters is the Simpson case itself. A 1997 civil jury went on to find him liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The two findings are consistent because they applied different burdens of proof. The criminal jury said they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed them. The civil jury said it was more than 50% likely he did. Thus Simpson was criminally "not guilty," but civilly "liable" for the damage he caused. Taken together, these legal rulings say he was absolutely not "found innocent."
An example why this matters is the Simpson case itself. A 1997 civil jury went on to find him liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The two findings are consistent because they applied different burdens of proof. The criminal jury said they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed them. The civil jury said it was more than 50% likely he did. Thus Simpson was criminally "not guilty," but civilly "liable" for the damage he caused. Taken together, these legal rulings say he was absolutely not "found innocent."
That depends on the legal system in place. For instance, Scotland has "guilty", "not guilty", and "not proven", with a distinct difference between "not guilty" and "not proven". There are other legal systems as well where a verdict that amounts to exoneration exists, some with a sort of presumption of guilt, where the exoneration is simply a finding against presumption, and others where there's the same difference between "you probably have the wrong guy" and "you haven't met the burden of proof" as in Scotland.
Photoshopped out tattoos to show a photo-lineup representative of having covered it up with makeup seems to be the real argument made in TFA. In this light seems a bit more innocuous.
Why is that important? Can the witnesses not come up with the same hypothesis and picture the suspect's face without tattoos?
Going further, where exactly is the line here? Could police add tattoos if they suspected the suspect had temporary ones? If the suspect had long hair and cut it before the photo was taken, would it be okay for police to add similar hair to their photo? Could they airbrush out scars/freckles/etc? Change hair color?
How far should we allow the police to go to make a photo look like their suspect?
Going further, where exactly is the line here? Could police add tattoos if they suspected the suspect had temporary ones? If the suspect had long hair and cut it before the photo was taken, would it be okay for police to add similar hair to their photo? Could they airbrush out scars/freckles/etc? Change hair color?
How far should we allow the police to go to make a photo look like their suspect?
Eyewitness identification is error-prone enough without the police actively editing photos to get a match.
Then why not portray him as being white, in case his makeup skills are that good?
They were trying to convict him, not free him.
Because the robber didn't appear white?
He also didn't appear to be tattoo-free, but we need to plan for any situation.
He did appear to be tattoo-free. That's the point.
Except for the fact that they also altered the overall lighting, and had no record of what the process or the final result was.
I semi-remember hearing that ear-prints are also somewhat unique (like, say, thumb-prints). Since the CCTV seems to have a decent ear image, couldn't the defense demonstrate that their client's ear is distinctly different in shape?
>...and the decision to cover up Allen’s tattoos was done in this case to “prevent misidentifying the suspect.”
How are you going to "misidentify" a suspect with facial tattoos against an array without them? Not only that, until the tip, facial tattoos didn't even enter the equation. The prominent one on his right cheek should've been a dead give-away, even in the released surveillance photo.
This seems like a "We got him, boys, let's make sure he doesn't get away!" type of situation.
How are you going to "misidentify" a suspect with facial tattoos against an array without them? Not only that, until the tip, facial tattoos didn't even enter the equation. The prominent one on his right cheek should've been a dead give-away, even in the released surveillance photo.
This seems like a "We got him, boys, let's make sure he doesn't get away!" type of situation.
I've had to do an identity parade; I failed to correctly identify the perp. I'd eyeballed the guy for only a few seconds, and the line-up was three months later. I picked someone out, but it was the wrong guy. The perp and everyone in the line-up were all black guys; I'm white, and not very good at telling black guys apart.
Line-ups are on the whole poor quality evidence.
[edit] The cops also screwed up; I learned later that me and the suspect had been in the same room in the cop-shop, prior to the line-up.