I wanted to donate to his GoFundMe, but the link says the campaign has been taken down??
https://www.gofundme.com/f/us2zh-free-after-35-years-in-pris...
(Click “donate now” button to see what I mean)
MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
141–150 of 184 posts
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=996629 , is the 2.3% https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228207991_Innocents... is the 5%.
And for context: both of those numbers are based on studying proven false convictions of people given the death penalty, which of course is a) supposed to have a high bar of evidence to convict in the first place and b) does have an incredibly high bar of both evidence and legal argument to be proven innocent after conviction. Since the majority of people convicted of crimes in the USA didn't even go to trial, it is…
[deleted]
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#143Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Expanse is one of the TV series that I was thinking of actually when I wrote that comment. It'd be too long to write down here but I feel like while The Expanse got many things right it also portrayed all sorts of fundamental things that were completely off. For example even in the first season things that are fundamentally off that result in very different futures: * The idea that we would actively intentionally…
It sounds like fiction isn't your style, basically. It would be a boring landscape if all the predictions which went into every science-fiction story were the ones you happen to like. Add them up, you get Star Trek. That's great: but we already have Star Trek.
Agree, 100%. I storytelling without the imagination is a story that doesn't change your perspective in any way.
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#145So why is deception wrong in an interrogation? I can see some of the other tactics as problematic, but not that directly.
Huh? I've never been so saddened by a comment actually.
"We have a video of you at the scene of the crime with indisputable evidence. It doesn't matter what you say, there are 10 policemen waiting to testify against you. It's your word against theirs. If you don't take this deal you will go away for life."
You don't have money for a lawyer and you have no idea if there are actually 10 policemen waiting to testify against you. Do you take the chance? How is that not problematic?
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
People make plea deals and write confessions to reduce the punishment if they think they will be convicted. That motivation remains entirely the same even if they think they will be falsely convicted.
With access to a lawyer (one of the other issues) this shouldn't be a problem. And there are ways the police are supposed to verify the confession (changes to ensure that could be better).
You seem to argue strongly in favor of deception, but justifying that it's ok if all the other measures against false convictions are in place (lawyers, police who work by the book...).
To me, it's like wearing a safety belt. I mean, if all your driver assistance systems work and all the other drivers pay attention and drive perfectly, you shouldn't need it, right?
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you anything about Japan you wouldn’t say this. Japan’s criminal justice system is so bad as to rival Central America, not the US.
I think you misunderstood, abhorrent means disgusting, loathsome, terrible etc. So he’s saying Japan’s criminal justice system is unconscionable just like the US, not that they are equally bad.
You seem to have misunderstood the comment you are replying to and the one it replied to.
This is literally what was replied to:
> Japan and America seem to be similar
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstood, abhorrent means disgusting, loathsome, terrible etc. So he’s saying Japan’s criminal justice system is unconscionable just like the US, not that they are equally bad.
You seem to have misunderstood the comment you are replying to and the one it replied to. This is literally what was replied to: > Japan and America seem to be similar
I think you're actually misunderstanding what david38 and Retric are discussing. They're saying they're in agreement and that the US and Central America are similar, but not "equally bad".
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#149Curb Your Enthusiasm was filming an episode during a baseball game. A man accused of killing someone walked into frame as part of the crowd and that was proof of his location at the time of the crime. YouTube video of 60 Minutes Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V5Cj8d43Yw
So, first off, given that they were trying to incarcerate an innocent person in the case I think that the detectives in this case were either incompetent, or immoral. It did somewhat throw me, in that documentary, to have the policeman that they used to say that be mark fuhrman[0] from the OJ simpson case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman
> given that they were trying to incarcerate an innocent person in the case I think that the detectives in this case were either incompetent, or immoral.
It really doesn’t need to be that exciting. For the most part, it’s much more mundane. A detective comes up with a theory (let’s not forget…American “detectives” are poorly trained in actual detection), and they need to close a case so they are highly primed to prioritize any evidence that supports their theory.
Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m OK with that if it avoids innocent people rotting away their one life in prison for a crime they didn’t commit.
There are downsides to police and prosecutors abdicating their responsibilities. Urban flight and then eventually urban decay and despair. We will see what happens to dense liberal urban cities in America over the next 7-15 years. The trends are clear, alarm sirens are blaring, but people are instead patting themselves on the back.
I’m not suggesting we don’t prosecute crimes in general. I’m suggesting that we only sentence people for whom we are pretty damn sure (well over 99% sure).
If we release someone because there’s a 1 in 200 chance they’re not guilty, so be it. That’s not suggesting we release people where that chance is 0 in 200.