Nick Reese is a prosecutor, and he has the highest conviction rate in California. So far, he has a 100% conviction rate.
In the British and American judicial systems, prosecutors in criminal cases are equivalent to domestic public prosecutors, responsible for national prosecution of criminal cases. Although sometimes prosecutors are translated as prosecutors during translation, their responsibilities are very different from domestic prosecutors.
For a prosecutor, the conviction rate is equivalent to the "performance" and "highlight" of their work. The level of the conviction rate will also directly affect a prosecutor's future and future development. Many politicians in the United States started their careers as prosecutors, and when they run for Congress in the future, their high conviction rate as prosecutors will be a bonus.
Moreover, the British and American judicial systems are biased towards protecting defendants to a certain extent, and the conviction rate is also a way to protect the rights and interests of defendants. Because of the indicator of conviction rate, prosecutors will not easily prosecute suspects without full certainty of conviction. In this way, prosecutors will not prosecute suspects with a "try it out" mentality. Resulting in wasting a lot of public resources.
The police are responsible for detecting cases. From the police's perspective, in order to pursue the case closure rate, they want the prosecutor to prosecute the suspect quickly. Therefore, it is not ruled out that the police will file charges without collecting enough evidence in order to quickly close the case. And with the conviction rate, hasty prosecution when there is insufficient evidence is making a joke on the future of the prosecutor and his superiors. Prosecutors will not prosecute cases where there is insufficient evidence, which also forces the police to go. Collect enough evidence to prove the suspect's crime, thereby reducing the probability that the suspect will be wrongly accused.
Of course, this judicial system also has major flaws. In this judicial system, a defendant's direct confession can be regarded as a successful conviction. For the sake of their own conviction rate, prosecutors often hope to convict in this way, which is faster and more cost-effective. , instead of having a long and fierce confrontation with the defense lawyer in court. Therefore, the prosecutor will reduce the sentence in exchange for the suspect's voluntary confession. In this way, the prosecutor can not only ensure his conviction rate, but also save time and energy, and the suspect can also get a reduced sentence. As for whether the suspect gets what he deserves Penalties were instead put aside. There is a very famous movie with a similar plot.
The conviction rate is very important. Most prosecutors have a relatively high conviction rate, and prosecutor Nick Reese is definitely one of the best. A 100% conviction rate almost means that he has the suspect in his hands. You won't be able to run away.
At this time, Prosecutor Reese was drinking coffee in the chief's office of the Los Angeles Police Department.
He was really drinking coffee, rather than being "invited" to the police station to "drink coffee" like in Hong Kong dramas.
In front of Reese was a man with a severe bald head. This man was the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.
"Nick, we have to come to you this time as a last resort. You are the prosecutor with the highest conviction rate in California. I believe you can successfully convict that guy!" the police chief said.
"I have read the relevant files. It may be far-fetched to accuse him of murder. If I accuse him of intentionally injuring someone, it is said that the injured person has accepted his compensation and does not intend to continue pursuing it. As for assaulting the police, he did assault the police at the time. behavior, but considering that he was in a state of being kidnapped by others and could only use this method to seek help, this is also a reasonable excuse."
Reese spread his hands and continued: "And it is recorded in the file that he did not cause any physical harm to any police officer. He just left a few holes in the police car. The injured police officers were all related to the kidnappers." It was caused during the gunfight. If we just charge him with damaging public property, I can convict him 100%."
"What I want is not damage to public property, I want to sue him for assaulting the police!" the police chief continued angrily: "He did not hurt our police officer, but if his bullet was slightly deflected, the hole would not be Just left in the police car!”
"How about asking him to donate a fund to your police department? I heard that the coach is very rich." Reese said jokingly.
"Nick, you still don't understand my intention." The police chief continued with a solemn expression: "The purpose of his shooting at passers-by was to make the passers-by call the police, and the purpose of his shooting at the police was to arouse the police's attention. Pay attention and try to rescue him. Maybe what he did was not wrong, but I don’t want this behavior to be encouraged, and I don’t want others to learn what he did.”
The police chief put on a righteous expression: "It is indeed understandable to hurt others in order to save one's own life. Anyone else might make the same choice, but that does not mean that Actions are just. He wants to save his own life. Doesn’t the life of the innocent passer-by need to be protected? The injured passer-by did not do anything wrong. He didn’t even do anything. He was just passing by. That’s it. Then he got shot. Although he didn’t die, should this innocent passerby be sacrificed?”
Reese opened his mouth slightly but said nothing. The police chief's righteous look made Reese unable to answer the question. For a person who stands on the moral high ground, anything he says is wrong.
The police chief continued: “Besides, he also shot at our police officers. Although he was trying to attract the police’s attention and it can be seen as calling the police in this way, I still think it is a very bad method. As I just said, from such a long distance, his gun hit our police officer just a little bit! If his behavior is forgiven, then others will follow his example! That would cause us a lot of trouble.”
"Huh?" Reese agreed, then looked at the police chief with interest.
The police chief continued: "Imagine that our police officers were on duty on the road, and then they heard a gunshot. Someone in the distance fired cold shots at the police officers. Afterwards, we caught that person, but he said he did it just for the sake of peace. Call the police, don’t you think this is ridiculous? What if that person’s shooting skills were not very accurate and caused casualties to our police officers, or maybe someone deliberately shot at our police officers and then defended it afterwards If you call the police, can you get away with it? I don’t want our police officers to be shot inexplicably while on duty!”
"I was almost fooled by his righteous demeanor just now. I thought he had a strong sense of justice. It turned out that he was just worried that a similar situation would happen again, which would bring more trouble to the police, or cause an accident to the police. Casualties. I think this is the real reason why he must sue that coach, right? He doesn't want to see anyone imitate that coach's behavior." A strange smile flashed across Reese's face.
"Director, I understand what you mean. Your purpose is not to put that coach in jail. You hope to convey an attitude or act as a deterrent to others, right?" Rui? Si asked.
"That's right. I don't want anyone to imitate that coach's behavior." The police chief nodded.
"Okay, although this case is very difficult, I will try my best." Reese agreed.
…
Nick Reese returned to his office.
"Nick, Mr. Terrell is waiting for you." The colleague said to Reese.
Terrell is Reese's boss and the head of all prosecutors here.
"I'll be there right away." Reese nodded and walked towards Mr. Terrell's office.
Reese knocked on the door and approached Terrell's office, and Terrell was indeed waiting for Reese.
"Reese, you just came back from the police station? What's the specific situation?" Terrell asked.
"I talked to the police chief. As you told me before, what he wants is not as simple as damaging public property. He wants us to prosecute the coach for intentional injury and assaulting the police. If I hadn't persuaded him, he probably would have wanted to prosecute. Murdered." Reese informed his superiors of the police chief's intentions.
"This is a bit troublesome." Terrell suddenly frowned, and he said: "The penalties for intentional injury and assaulting the police are not light. Do you think that if we exchange for a lighter penalty, that coach Will you plead guilty?"
"I'm afraid this is difficult." Reese spread his hands and continued: "It would be fine if the other party was just an ordinary person, but that coach is a rich man. He has a chain of physical training centers with many well-known athletes. Training there, he can afford the best lawyer to help him with the lawsuit. If he is just accused of destroying public property, he will most likely plead guilty. But if he did not intentionally hurt or assault the police, he will definitely not plead guilty. He will plead guilty. The lawsuit will be fought to the end.”
"So, this lawsuit must go to court." Terrell said.
"Yes, and I may go to court many times. I am ready to fight a protracted war." Reese replied.
Terrell showed a satisfied expression: "As long as you have this awareness. In fact, after reading the file of this case, I have some sympathy for the coach. He is the victim of the whole incident. But we and the Los Angeles Police Department We have had a good working relationship for so many years, so I couldn't say no to them. Nick, you know, we and the police department are mutually beneficial, and many times I can't help it."
"Mr. Terrell, I understand." Reese said understandingly.
"Okay, I'll leave this matter to you. If there's anything you need me to solve, you can come to me directly." Terrell said.
"There is indeed something that I want to report to you first." Reese lowered his voice and continued: "It is difficult to convict in this case, so I plan to use the power of public opinion."
Terrell thought for a few seconds and then nodded: "I think it's okay, but it should be moderate and don't make the matter too big. If the matter becomes too big, the trial process will also be affected."
…
"Would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" 》
Such a topic appeared in the media, and Dai Li's incident was directly regarded as a real-life case.
Soon, some media commentators expressed their opinions. This kind of issue can easily attract people's attention, thus triggering many public discussions. Some media conducted online interactive voting, and some simply went to the streets to conduct random interviews, asking passers-by whether they would hurt an innocent person to protect themselves.
This so-called questionnaire survey does not have much practical significance. If this kind of moral issue is just a questionnaire survey, the subjects of the survey will definitely answer from the commanding heights of morality. Some people may even say that they were kidnapped. Killing will not harm an innocent person.
This is like someone going to the street and asking passers-by, if you had 10 billion, would you be willing to donate 5 billion to the poor? I believe many people would say yes. Anyway, you don’t have 10 billion, so it’s hard to stand and talk. My back hurts, who doesn’t know how to brag
But if someone holds a donation box and hopes passersby to donate 100 yuan, how many people will donate? Anyone can afford 100 yuan, but if you don’t talk about it, who will continue to stay on that moral high ground when it comes time to pay? Not to mention 5 billion, I wouldn’t give up even 100 yuan!
However, the momentum of public opinion is very unfavorable to Dai Li. Everyone will affect each other, especially some issues involving morality. When most people begin to look at others from a moral high point, then right and wrong and the truth It becomes unimportant.
…
"Would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" 》
Such a topic appeared in the media, and Dai Li's incident was directly regarded as a real-life case.
Soon, some media commentators expressed their opinions. This kind of issue can easily attract people's attention, thus triggering many public discussions. Some media conducted online interactive voting, and the results were not in doubt. More than 95% of the voters said they would not hurt an innocent person to protect themselves, while the other half did not answer "yes." , but "don't know".
Some media even went to the streets to conduct random interviews and asked ordinary citizens whether they would hurt an innocent person to protect themselves.
"Sir, let me ask you a question, would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" The female reporter walked up to a passerby with a microphone in hand.
"Of course not! How could I do such an immoral thing? I would rather be hurt myself than hurt an innocent person!" the passerby replied without hesitation, he looked at the camera, that righteous He looks like a superhero from a comic book.
"Madam, let me ask you a question, would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" The female reporter found another target.
"No, absolutely not!" The woman immediately shook her head: "I have a moral bottom line, and I will not inflict pain on others."
"Sir, let me ask you a question, would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" The female reporter asked a middle-aged man this time.
"Why do you ask such a strange question?" the middle-aged man asked.
"It was because of a recent kidnapping case in Los Angeles. The hostage was unable to call the police. He shot a passerby and then attracted the police, and he was rescued." The female reporter said.
"Oh my god, since that hostage had a gun, why didn't he kill the kidnappers instead of shooting a passerby!" The middle-aged man showed an exaggerated expression, and he continued: "If it were me If so, I would blow the kidnapper’s head with a gun instead of hurting an innocent passerby!”
This so-called questionnaire survey does not have much practical significance. If this kind of moral issue is just a questionnaire survey, the person being investigated will definitely answer from the moral high ground, and will give the most hypocritical answer. .
This is like someone going to the street and asking passers-by, if you had 10 billion, would you be willing to donate 5 billion to the poor? I believe many people would say yes. Anyway, you don’t have 10 billion, so it’s hard to stand and talk. My back hurts, who doesn’t know how to brag
But if someone holds a donation box and hopes passersby to donate 100 yuan, how many people will actually donate? Anyone can afford 100 yuan, but when it comes time to pay, I’m afraid many people will be intimidated
I have the ability to pretend to be worth 5 billion, but I can’t bear to pay even 100 yuan! This is not only ridiculous, but also a cruel reality and a hypocrisy in human nature.
However, this kind of moral kidnapping is very detrimental to Dai Li. People will influence each other, especially on issues involving morality. Everyone will try to stand on the moral high ground.
When most people begin to look at others from a moral high point, right and wrong and the truth become unimportant, leaving only the kind of "seemingly righteous" criticism.