Priceless Paintings from W7

A sad piece of local news about the murder of 49-year-old taxi driver Michael Okonko-Nwosoa in Abbey Wood, South London, made me think (BBC):

Suppose I had robbed a bank, and initially gotten away with it. I am a master of disguise and was clever enough to hide the monies so that they aren’t found. The police’s got a hunch though, and arrested me for questioning. While they have found the bank robber, they don’t have hard evidence. Of course, I deny all charges.

I call a lawyer. So, now what?

Should I play innocent and pretend being a victim of an unfounded arrest? I’d weave a net of lies for my lawyer to balance on. Given that he or she is busy searching further proof of my innocence, and that I have somewhat limited resources while behind bars, my lawyer is likely to stumble and find out the truth sooner or later.

Or, should I put the cards on the table with my lawyer? Admit guilt under four eyes, so that the lawyer can skilfully try to prevent any proof of guilt by the prosecutor? Would that not put the lawyer into a dilemma, from where is only one morally sound solution: unveil my secret (against my will), and work towards a mild sentence.

I am no lawyer and know little about the legal profession. Maybe one of you knows this: does the system require that a defence lawyer claims innocence even when knowing the opposite is true? How far is a defence lawyer legally allowed to deflect and prevent the prosecution from discovering the truth?

Thoughts law enforcement, society

Effective January 12, 2009, all visitors to the US traveling on a visa waiver program are required to obtain an electronic travel authorization before boarding.

So, I click https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov. In the name of fighting terrorism, I obtain the following warm welcome to the United States of America:

“This Department of Homeland Security (DHS) computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. As part of this monitoring, DHS may acquire, access, retain, intercept, capture, record, read, inspect, analyze, audit, copy and disclose any information processed, transmitted, received communicated and stored within the computer system. If monitoring reveals misuse or criminal activity, notice of such may may be provided to appropriate supervisory personnel and law enforcement officials. DHS may conduct these activities in any manner without further notice. By clicking OK below or by using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice.”

If they could shoot me through the Internet, I am sure they would also allow for that possibility as a precautionary measure.

While DHS reserves the rights to conduct these activities in any manner, they apparently fail to prevent everyone else from conducting a new kind of business: While the DHS seeks to fight terrorists, they forgot the common crooks, who were quick to set up genuine looking web sites that charge anything from $49 upwards to assistance with the process – which is free and simple if you ignore the crooks and go for the not so intuitive official URL.

Thoughts, Travel law enforcement, United States, United States of America;