"Grill" is an informal term for "asking questions in a way that makes the person being asked uncomfortable." The more you "grill" someone, the more uncomfortable they become. "Police questioning" could be a more polite way to put it.
The implication is that if you make someone uncomfortable enough, they'll say whatever they have to just to get out of the situation they're in. That could mean a confession. Or it could mean a false confession.
Thanks. Well, I know the word, but I wasn't sure how to interpret it in this context. If they, for instance, let the suspect sit on a hard chair with a strong spotlight on his face for hours while 4-5 policemen throw intimidating questions at him/her, it's torture where I come from. If they don't let the suspect phone a lawyer or put him/her before a judge within a fixed amount of hours, it's a violation of human rights. So, how did they describe the "grilling" on BBC?
Thanks. Well, I know the word, but I wasn't sure how to interpret it in this context. If they, for instance, let the suspect sit on a hard chair with a strong spotlight on his face for hours while 4-5 policemen throw intimidating questions at him/her, it's torture where I come from. If they don't let the suspect phone a lawyer or put him/her before a judge within a fixed amount of hours, it's a violation of human rights. So, how did they describe the "grilling" on BBC?
It could certainly result in a false confession. It could also - and probably would in U.S. and Denmark - result in one that was inadmissible in court. The accused, or the defense, would only have to describe how it was obtained.
Uhmm..there was a case in a very rural town in southern Japan, that is Kagashima prefecture. This incident was a frame up by police in relation to election fraud known as Shibushi incident.
This is an isolate case from general police interrogation.
I meant by this blog that a defence lawyer makes the most of for the defense of his clients.
It is acceptable that the lawyers emphasise how miserable the life of his clients is, but it is very questionable that lawyers raise the possibility of the lack of mental capability in his clients when no other alternatives of defense have gone.
I see, but isn't it most common that the defense tries to weaken the evidence against the accused, make the jury doubt the witnesses, for instance, and/or show that the accused is not the ONLY person who could have committed the crime? In other words, the defense tries to show that the client didn't do it or, as a last resort, that he/she hasn't been proven guilty.
Whether the accused has had a miserable life or not is completely irrelevant for determining his/her guilt. It may be relevant for fixing the punishment. As for lack of mental capacity, well, the accused may be mentally retarded or psychotic, in which cases he/she is not legally responsible for his/her crime. Then the defense needs a doctor's certificate. Isn't it so in Japan?
It is simply extremely hard for psychiatrist to determine whether those who committed crimes are mentally ill - irresponsible or sane - responsible enough. Some very rich people give pressure to doctors to change the result of their examination to acquit.
The Menendez brother's trial in America was about two very rich young men who killed their parents because they were supposedly abused as children... I think the defense lawyer uses the defense most likely to work, regardless of the financial status of their clients.
Lots of poor people commit murder while under the influence of drugs or alcohol so their defense is diminished capacity/incompetence.
Sheesh - what, do the police have to hold a tea party for the person being interrogated? Sounds like the police can do a damn thing to suspects in your country.
How do you PROVE such tactics were used? It's the word of the suspect vs. the word of the cops, and the judge will believe the police over the suspect every single time. And police cover for each other, even lie to each other, compounding the difficulty of proving police misconduct.
Anyways unless there's prior documented evidence of mental troubles, how can you prove they were mentally troubled at the time they committed the crime? Perhaps seeing the results of their crime is what drove them to having mental problems, rather than being pre-existing. Can you prove otherwise? It would be very difficult.
If someone killed their parents, whatever the direct reason might be -it might be an inevitable counter attack to child abuse, this is a result of their mental illness. They are insane, out of their mind. Or are the kids not real children of parents? Adopted or something?
I'm afraid your claim poor people commit crimes under influence is not to the point. The reason they had to be addicted must have been because they are out of job, etc. I mean because of their poverty. I think poverty must be the first cause why the poor had to commit crimes.
My claim is based on my close observation to lots of criminal court cases.
I agree with you on poverty as a reason for crime, and what often goes with poverty, e.g. humiliation, little or no education, hence no hope of improving one's situation, and a grudge against society/the rich.
Addiction to drugs and/or alcohol is NOT confined to the poor AT ALL.
So nobody gets a "I didn't do it" defense?
ReplyDeleteI heard on the BBC late last week that the police in Japan prefer to grill suspects until they get a confession. Have you heard the same?
"grill"?? Does that mean torture?
ReplyDelete"Grill" is an informal term for "asking questions in a way that makes the person being asked uncomfortable." The more you "grill" someone, the more uncomfortable they become. "Police questioning" could be a more polite way to put it.
ReplyDeleteThe implication is that if you make someone uncomfortable enough, they'll say whatever they have to just to get out of the situation they're in. That could mean a confession. Or it could mean a false confession.
Thanks. Well, I know the word, but I wasn't sure how to interpret it in this context. If they, for instance, let the suspect sit on a hard chair with a strong spotlight on his face for hours while 4-5 policemen throw intimidating questions at him/her, it's torture where I come from. If they don't let the suspect phone a lawyer or put him/her before a judge within a fixed amount of hours, it's a violation of human rights.
ReplyDeleteSo, how did they describe the "grilling" on BBC?
Thanks. Well, I know the word, but I wasn't sure how to interpret it in this context. If they, for instance, let the suspect sit on a hard chair with a strong spotlight on his face for hours while 4-5 policemen throw intimidating questions at him/her, it's torture where I come from. If they don't let the suspect phone a lawyer or put him/her before a judge within a fixed amount of hours, it's a violation of human rights.
ReplyDeleteSo, how did they describe the "grilling" on BBC?
It could certainly result in a false confession. It could also - and probably would in U.S. and Denmark - result in one that was inadmissible in court. The accused, or the defense, would only have to describe how it was obtained.
ReplyDeleteUhmm..there was a case in a very rural town in southern Japan, that is Kagashima prefecture. This incident was a frame up by police in relation to election fraud known as Shibushi incident.
ReplyDeleteThis is an isolate case from general police interrogation.
I meant by this blog that a defence lawyer makes the most of for the defense of his clients.
ReplyDeleteIt is acceptable that the lawyers emphasise how miserable the life of his clients is, but it is very questionable that lawyers raise the possibility of the lack of mental capability in his clients when no other alternatives of defense have gone.
I see, but isn't it most common that the defense tries to weaken the evidence against the accused, make the jury doubt the witnesses, for instance, and/or show that the accused is not the ONLY person who could have committed the crime? In other words, the defense tries to show that the client didn't do it or, as a last resort, that he/she hasn't been proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteWhether the accused has had a miserable life or not is completely irrelevant for determining his/her guilt. It may be relevant for fixing the punishment.
As for lack of mental capacity, well, the accused may be mentally retarded or psychotic, in which cases he/she is not legally responsible for his/her crime. Then the defense needs a doctor's certificate. Isn't it so in Japan?
It is simply extremely hard for psychiatrist to determine whether those who committed crimes are mentally ill - irresponsible or sane - responsible enough. Some very rich people give pressure to doctors to change the result of their examination to acquit.
ReplyDeleteOh. Well, that's definitely unacceptable for your society.
ReplyDeleteThe Menendez brother's trial in America was about two very rich young men who killed their parents because they were supposedly abused as children... I think the defense lawyer uses the defense most likely to work, regardless of the financial status of their clients.
ReplyDeleteLots of poor people commit murder while under the influence of drugs or alcohol so their defense is diminished capacity/incompetence.
What is the basis for your claim?
Sheesh - what, do the police have to hold a tea party for the person being interrogated? Sounds like the police can do a damn thing to suspects in your country.
ReplyDeleteHow do you PROVE such tactics were used? It's the word of the suspect vs. the word of the cops, and the judge will believe the police over the suspect every single time. And police cover for each other, even lie to each other, compounding the difficulty of proving police misconduct.
ReplyDeleteAnyways unless there's prior documented evidence of mental troubles, how can you prove they were mentally troubled at the time they committed the crime? Perhaps seeing the results of their crime is what drove them to having mental problems, rather than being pre-existing. Can you prove otherwise? It would be very difficult.
ReplyDeleteIf someone killed their parents, whatever the direct reason might be -it might be an inevitable counter attack to child abuse, this is a result of their mental illness. They are insane, out of their mind. Or are the kids not real children of parents? Adopted or something?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid your claim poor people commit crimes under influence is not to the point. The reason they had to be addicted must have been because they are out of job, etc. I mean because of their poverty. I think poverty must be the first cause why the poor had to commit crimes.
My claim is based on my close observation to lots of criminal court cases.
I agree with you on poverty as a reason for crime, and what often goes with poverty, e.g. humiliation, little or no education, hence no hope of improving one's situation, and a grudge against society/the rich.
ReplyDeleteAddiction to drugs and/or alcohol is NOT confined to the poor AT ALL.