Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How do you envision that playing out? If the court has no power to compel testimony they have very little power in general.



How do you figure? They have the power to allow prosecutors to present physical evidence, and to allow testimony from cooperative witnesses. Then they have the power to have a trial based on this evidence, and then find a suspect guilty or not guilty. If they find the suspect guilty, they have the power to impose a sentence.

What more do they need? Compelling testimony from an uncooperative witness isn't necessary for a case, nor is it even very helpful: such a witness can't be considered reliable or trustworthy.


And what if you can't obtain that evidence because the person in possession won't hand it over? What if your only 'witness' is a corporate entity? What if your witness just doesn't like cops? Probably a hundred more scenarios I can't come up with at the moment.

In your world guilty parties walk because the state has no power to make anyone do anything. Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need. The real world doesn't work that way.


I have a really hard time believing that the vast majority of convictions depend on uncooperative witness testimony.


Who ever said "vast majority"?


"Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need."

Are the italicized qualifiers intended to mean something other than that?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: