Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison

#61

Post by philwelch »

joe_the_user wrote: post #60
philwelch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone sentenced to death is tried and convicted before a jury. I see no contradiction between trusting juries and distrusting unelected federal bureaucrats.

I think the article shows strong a connection between untrustworthy officials and unreliable jury trials. In the case, officials effectively coerced at least three different people into testifying against the defendant and then lied about their behavior. Jurors aren't psychic. They have to assume that prosecutors aren't lying and coercing witnesses. So unreliable officials will give you unreliable jury trials. And ma…

I don't think the death penalty is a good idea, but I also don't think opposing the death penalty is a necessary consequence of opposing, for instance, health care reform, since they involve completely different types of government systems.

I also think it's pretty well understood that conservatives tend to trust policemen, prosecutors, and juries even though they tend to distrust federal regulators. Policemen and prosecutors are generally employed and even elected on local levels and perform a well-defined job that has to be done, and juries are (ideally, if not in practice) a random sample of the people, while federal regulators are, in the conservative view, trying to do a job that the market would do much more effectively--as well as appointed at the federal level, which is a lot farther from your local DA in terms of accountability to the public.

Re: Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison

#62

Post by philwelch »

gnaritas wrote: post #47
rdl wrote: post #39

This is one of many reasons I oppose capital punishment. It is odd that conservatives, who claim government is often the problem, not the solution, would entrust the state with the power of life and death.

Not really, as the conservative opinion has little to do with logic or consistency; it's all about maintaining the status quo. They simply dislike change, many seem to wish progress stopped around 1890 or so.

That's a literal definition of "conservative", but there's plenty of instances of "conservatives" (in the US) trying to change things--conservatives were the most enthusiastic proponents of the War on Drugs, which changed the US legal system dramatically, as well as the War on Terrorism, which involved a whole mess of other "innovations". In many cases, conservatives are the ones wanting to change things and civil libertarians (i.e. liberals) were trying to maintain the status quo.

Re: Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison

#63

Post by gallerytungsten »

Locke1689 wrote: post #51
shrikant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, I couldn't say. (Also, a citation showing that the people who are ostensibly meant to uphold the law are in fact not playing fair and doing everything they can avoid justice..? What? How would that work) But a nice example would be this very case - even after the case was basically retro-actively thrown out, the prosecutor's office still maintain everything was kosher. (They still maintain that Collins is…

Even if there is corruption you have no data which says that is the primary actor in this phenomenon.

Don't mistake a singular possibility for the general. I gave one possibility; one that's real for me; whether it's the "primary" reason or not remains open to speculation. Many possibilities are possible simultaneously; this all depends on location and individual circumstance, along with the passage of time.

Be part of the problem, or propose part of the solution: that's on you, me, and everyone else who considers the matter. But consider whether you consider, whether you contribute; or whether you merely detract.

Re: Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison

#65

Post by gnaritas »

philwelch wrote: post #62
gnaritas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, as the conservative opinion has little to do with logic or consistency; it's all about maintaining the status quo. They simply dislike change, many seem to wish progress stopped around 1890 or so.

That's a literal definition of "conservative", but there's plenty of instances of "conservatives" (in the US) trying to change things--conservatives were the most enthusiastic proponents of the War on Drugs, which changed the US legal system dramatically, as well as the War on Terrorism, which involved a whole mess of other "innovations". In many cases, conservatives are the ones wanting to change things and civil li…

Those are examples of them trying to change things back to how they think it used to be. In both cases, they see it them defending themselves and their values against those who disrupt their world.

That's not trying to change things, that's trying to stop change, in the former case, stopping the invasion of the growing drug culture and in the latter the repulsion of those who want to destroy their freedom. Unfortunately, in these cases, they don't mind giving up other peoples rights in the name of safety, because their entire world view is dominated by fear. So yea, liberals tried to maintain the status quo of things like civil liberties, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

So it isn't just the literal definition of conservative, it's the prevailing attitude of nearly every one that I've met. They aren't just coincidentally called conservatives, nor are progressives coincidentally called such either. Both are fairly accurate descriptions of the general attitude of both groups; not everyone fits both groups, but most do, whether they admit to the label or not.

Re: Solitary Jailhouse Lawyer Argues His Way Out of Prison

#66

Post by rdl »

joe_the_user wrote: post #60
philwelch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone sentenced to death is tried and convicted before a jury. I see no contradiction between trusting juries and distrusting unelected federal bureaucrats.

I think the article shows strong a connection between untrustworthy officials and unreliable jury trials. In the case, officials effectively coerced at least three different people into testifying against the defendant and then lied about their behavior. Jurors aren't psychic. They have to assume that prosecutors aren't lying and coercing witnesses. So unreliable officials will give you unreliable jury trials. And ma…

Right -- the prosecutor and DA are really the first line of defense in wrongful prosecutions, in that their highest goal is supposed to be justice, and good ones will not pursue a case if it is inappropriate, or even if it unlikely to result in a conviction. They also are involved in deciding if they should go for capital murder charges vs. life or lesser offenses. If you don't trust the prosecutors to be reasonable (as elected officials in many jurisdictions), that's a major point against capital punishment as an option.
Post reply on HN