50岁丰满女人裸体毛茸茸

For a prosecutor, the conviction rate equaled the "performance" and "highlights" of their work. The conviction rate would directly affect their future and future career development as a prosecutor. Many politicians in the United States started as prosecutors, and their high conviction rates would build their reputation when they became political candidates.

Moreover, the Anglo-American judiciary system was a little biased towards protecting the defendants. And the conviction rate was also a way to protect the rights of the defendants. Because of the conviction rate index, prosecutors would not easily prosecute a suspect without a good chance of full conviction. The prosecutor would not sue a suspect with a "try it out" mentality, as it would lead to a waste of public resources.

The police were responsible for solving cases. From the police’s point of view, to maintain the settlement rate, they might be anxious to rush the prosecutor to charge a suspect. The possibility of the police closing a case and charging a suspect without sufficient evidence just to increase their settlement rate couldn’t be ruled out. And with a conviction rate index, a sloppy prosecution in the absence of evidence was simply taking the prosecutors and their superiors for a ride. Prosecutors would never prosecute a case without sufficient evidence. This also forced the police to collect sufficient evidence to prove the crime, thereby reducing the probability of suspects being wrongly charged.

Of course, there were also flaws in such a judiciary system. Under this kind of judiciary system, a direct confession from the defendant was considered a successful conviction. As such, a prosecutor would often try to get a conviction this way to boost his conviction rate. Instead of a long and fierce confrontation with the defense lawyers in court, they would often hope for this type of easy convictions. Therefore, the prosecutors would offer a shorter sentence in exchange for the subject pleading guilty. This was so that the prosecutor could get a guarantee on their conviction rate, saving them time and energy, while the suspect would receive a reduced penalty. Whether the suspect was receiving justice wasn’t considered important. There was a famous movie with a similar plot.

The conviction rate was very important. Most prosecutors had a high conviction rate, and Nick Reese was definitely one of the best. He had a 100% conviction rate. It could be said that if a suspect were to fall into his hands, they would not be able to escape.

At that point, Prosecutor Reese was drinking coffee in the office of the director of the Los Angeles Police Department.

He was really drinking coffee, not the kind of "being invited" to the police station to "drink coffee" in Hong Kong dramas.

In front of Reese was a man who had a serious case of balding on his hands. He was the director of the Los Angeles Police Department.

"Nick, we are hiring you this time because we have no other choice. You are the prosecutor with the highest conviction rate in California. I believe that you can successfully convict this guy!" the police chief said.

"I have read the relevant files and charging him for murder may be somewhat far-fetched. As for charging him for intentionally causing injury, the injured person has already accepted his compensation and does not intend to pursue it. As for assaulting the police, he did attack the police at that time, but considering the circumstances, that was the only way he could get help. This is also a justifiable excuse."

Reese shrugged and said, "And there is a record in the file. He did not cause any physical injury to any police officer. He just left a few holes on the police car. The policemen who were injured were injured in the gunfight between the police and the kidnappers. If we are only charging him for damage to public property, I could convict him 100%."

"What I want is not damage to public property, I want to charge him with police assault!" the police chief said indignantly. "It is true that he did not hurt our police officers, but if his bullets had strayed slightly, then the holes wouldn’t have just been in the police car!"

"How about letting him donate money to your police department? I heard that the coach is very rich," Reese joked.

"Nick, you still don’t understand my intentions," the police chief continued with a solemn expression. "He shot at the passerby to get the man to call the police, and he shot at the police to get the attention of the police so that they could rescue him. Maybe he was not wrong to do this, but I don’t want this behavior to be encouraged, and I don’t want anyone else to learn from him."

The police chief put on a stern expression. "It is understandable that one chooses to hurt others to save their own lives. Anyone who was in the same situation would make the same choice, but it does not mean that this behavior is just. He wanted to save his life, but the life of the innocent passerby does not need to be protected? The injured passerby did not do anything wrong. He was simply passing by, and he got shot. Although he did not die, should this innocent passerby simply have been sacrificed?"

Reese opened his mouth slightly but did not speak. Reese couldn’t find an answer that the police chief’s fervent sense of justice would accept. When faced with someone who had the moral high ground, everything he said would be wrong.

The police chief went on to say, "In addition, he also fired at our police. Although it could be seen as a way to notify the police, I still feel that this is a very bad method of doing so. As I said earlier, the distance was huge. If his aim were a little off, he would’ve hit our officers! If his behavior is forgiven, then others will follow his example! That would bring us a lot of trouble."

"Yeah?" Reese asked, then looked at the police chief with interest.

The police chief continued, "Imagine if our police officers were on duty on the road, and then a gunshot is heard. Someone in the distance had fired at a police officer. Afterward, we caught the man, and he said that he did it in order to notify the police. Wouldn’t you find that to be ridiculous? What if the gunmanship of that person wasn’t very accurate and caused harm to our police officers? Or if someone who deliberately shoots at our police officers, and then argues that he did it in order to notify the police, would he also escape punishment? I don’t want our police officers to be inexplicably shot at when they are on duty!"

I was almost deceived by his appearance of upholding justice. I thought that his sense of justice compelled him, but he was just worried about similar situations happening again, and it would bring more trouble to the police or cause accidental casualties. I think this is the real reason why he wants to charge the coach right? He doesn’t want to see others behaving like the coach. A strange smile flashed across Reese’s face.

"Chief, I now understand what you mean. Your purpose is not to put the coach in prison. You want to convey a message, or to achieve a deterrent effect on others, right?" Reese asked.

"That’s right. I don’t want anyone to follow the behavior of the coach," the police chief nodded.

"Okay. Although this case is somewhat difficult, I will do my best," Reese promised. ...

Nick Reese returned to his workplace.

"Nick, Mr. Terrell is waiting for you," a colleague said to Reese.

Terrell was Reese’s boss and the head of all the prosecutors there.

"I’ll go there immediately." Reese nodded and walked towards Mr. Terrell’s office.

Reese knocked on the door and walked into Terrell’s office, and Terrell was indeed waiting for Reese.

"Reese, just came back from the police station? What is the situation?" Terrell asked.

"I talked to the police chief. As you told me, what he wanted was something simple like damage to public property. He wants us to sue the coach for intentional assault and police assault. If it weren’t for me, he probably would’ve wanted to sue for murder." Reese relayed the police chief’s intentions to his boss.

"This can be a bit troublesome." Terrell frowned, and he said, "The penalties for intentional assault and police assault are not light. Do you think the coach would plead guilty if we offer the condition of mitigating the penalty in exchange?"

"I’m afraid that will be difficult." Reese shrugged and said, "If he were just an ordinary person, it would be okay, but the coach is a rich man. He has a chain of physical training centers. Many well-known athletes train there. He can afford the best lawyers to help him fight the lawsuit. If we were only charging him for the destruction of public property, he would in all likelihood plead guilty. But intentional assault and police assault? He definitely won’t plead guilty; he’ll fight this lawsuit till the very end."

"If that is the case, this lawsuit will definitely go to court," Terrell said.

"Yes, and it is possible I will need to go to court many times. I am ready to fight a long war," Reese replied.

Terrell looked satisfied. "It is good that you are determined. Actually, after reading the case file, I am sympathetic towards the coach. He was the victim in the whole incident. But we have had a very good relationship with the Los Angeles Police Department for so many years, so I can’t refuse them. Nick, you know, our relationship with the police department is mutually beneficial. Often times, I don’t have a choice."

"Mr. Terrell, I understand," Reese said understandingly.

"Alright, I’m handing this matter over to you. If there is anything you need from me, you can come to me directly," Terrell said.

"There is one thing I want to report to you first." Reese lowered his voice and went on to say, "It will be difficult to get a conviction in this case, so I intend to use the power of public opinion."

Terrell thought about it for a few seconds, then nodded. "I think it’s okay, but it needs to be in moderation. Don’t make it into too big of an issue. If things get too big, the trial process would be affected."

...

"Would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?"

The topic was sensational, and Dai Li’s case provided a real case study.

Very quickly, some media commentators issued their opinions. It was very likely that this kind of issue would attract people’s attention, and this led to many people discussing the issue. Some news outlets engaged in online interactive voting. Other news networks went to the streets to engage in random interviews with passersby.

"Sir, I want to ask you a question. Would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" The female reporter walked up to a passerby with a microphone.

"Of course not! How could I do such an unethical thing? I would rather get hurt myself then hurt an innocent person!" the passerby replied without any hesitation. He looked at the camera. The sense of justice he had on his face made it look as if he were a superhero in a comic book.

"Madam, I want to ask you a question. Would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" The female reporter found another target.

"No, absolutely not!" The woman shook her head immediately. "I have a moral bottom line. I would not cause pain to others."

"Sir, I want to ask you a question. Would you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" the female reporter asked, this time to a middle-aged man.

"Why would you ask such a strange question?" the middle-aged man asked back.

"It is because of a recent kidnapping incident in Los Angeles. The hostages were unable to contact the police. He shot a passerby to get the attention of the police. He was rescued because of it," the female reporter said.

"Oh my god! That hostage already had a gun, why didn’t he just shoot the kidnappers instead of choosing to shoot a passerby!" The middle-aged man looked exasperated. He continued to say, "If it were me, I would use the gun to shoot the kidnappers in the head, not go and hurt an innocent passerby!"

There was not much practical significance to these kinds of so-called questionnaires. If it were a questionnaire that was related to morality, the people being asked the questions would definitely choose to stand on the moral high ground. And they would give the most hypocritical of answers.

This would be like if someone went on the street to ask passersby if they had 10 billion dollars, would they be willing to donate five billion to the poor. Many people would say that they would be willing. They didn’t have 10 billion anyway. It was easier said than done. Who wouldn’t boast?

But if someone were holding a donation box and wanted passersby to donate 100 dollars, how many people would choose to donate? Almost everyone could afford 100 dollars, but when it came time to actually donate, most people would become stingy.

People have the ability to pretend that they could donate 5 billion, but they would be reluctant to even give 100 dollars. This wasn’t just laughable, but a cruel reflection of reality. It was human nature to be hypocritical.

However, this type of moral coercion was not favorable to Dai Li. People would influence one another, especially on issues of morality. Everyone tried to stand on the moral high ground.

When the majority of people started to judge him from their moral high ground, the truth would become unimportant. The only thing left would be criticism from the point of view of "superficial justice."