This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
And that is reality smashing into philosophy isn’t it? I always wondered how our modern concepts of evidence and due process could square with the murk of modern crime without all of the technology we now use. (Think about it, no DNA, no cameras, not even fingerprints!) The simple answer is the two did not reconcile. Without interrogation one could do anything as long as there were no witnesses. With interrogation anyone could be made to confess to anything.
I notice a link between the medieval torturer and the early cop. Neither is actually motivated to discern the truth. Both are motivated by an instruction to take the person in question and get them officially declared criminals so that the state can do what it wants to them (imprison, kill, or just separate them from support).
Just the early cops? Some of the later ones weren’t much better. Some were outright worse a la Bull Connor and Chicago 1968.