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

MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 184 posts

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#171

Post by giantg2 »

danaris wrote: post #166
giantg2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Just because one is legally entitled to a lawyer doesn't mean one will a) understand that fully at the time of interrogation, especially if one is a minor or a foreigner b) trust that a court-appointed lawyer will actually work for your best interests c) actually get a court-appointed lawyer who does work for your best interests. So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer pre…

Minors can't be interrogated without a representative.

The Miranda reading should mean they understand the right to a lawyer.

You have to trust that any lawyer will work for your best interest since they tend to be paid regardless of outcome.

If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial. Same for private attorneys.

"So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer present, absent other police misconduct, is clearly a flawed assumption."

Where is that assumption? They necessarily have access to one. We can what-if all day. The fact is, you have the right to an effective attorney. This is even popularized by TV, and thus common knowledge.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#172

Post by OkayPhysicist »

mlindner wrote: post #10
walrus01 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many spaceflight movies and TV shows for example show very bad things in the future giving people a false impression that the future will be worse than the past I think The Expanse got it right, in that we're more likely in the near to medium term to get a bunch of oligarch type Jules-Pierre Maos (Hi Bezos!) running things behind the scenes. Not a utopia type technology + spaceflight + social inequity problems solv…

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…

I've got to disagree with a couple of your examples:

* MAD has proven an extremely effective tool for maintaining (relative) peace. It's almost certainly the only reason for the Russian Federation remaining an ongoing concern, and it's been the primary motivator for the continued existence of NATO, which is itself a stabilizing force. If you're a state that wishes to maintain independence, super weapons are a proven approach.

* In the US, we're currently watching a backslide of all sorts of gains made over the last century. History is far from monotonic, and taking progress for granted is a surefire recipe for losing it. In the case of a full-blown regime change, it would not at all be a given that basic things like labor rights were upheld.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#173

Post by motoxpro »

giantg2 wrote: post #163
motoxpro wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aga…

"How is that not problematic?" Because that's an unrealistic scenario (based on my other points). You have access to a lawyer even if you don't have money. The confession can (and should) be verified. There are ways to do this with safeguards. "Huh? I've never been so saddened by a comment actually." It sounds like you already have your mind made up. Otherwise I strongly suggest looking into proper interrogation tech…

Who verifies the confession? Once I have the confession that I wanted to get, whether because I was biased, malevolent or truly believe I was right, I have no incentive to verify what I just did. I feel like you are living in a fantasy world where people are "good" and "legal" all the time. This scenario right here proves otherwise.

The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point of view who have never lived out what happens in the real world. I know from close friends that what you are describing just doesn't always happen.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#174

Post by JoeAltmaier »

silexia wrote: post #170

I see lots of these "wrongful conviction" articles that are not very convincing. Claiming that we somehow know better decades later with less than 1% of the evidence still available that the original judge and jury had seems egotistical and foolish.

Yet this case had zero evidence other than a coerced confession. There was 100% (of zero) evidence available. The original judge and jury had nothing to go on but the confession.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#175

Post by danaris »

giantg2 wrote: post #171
danaris wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because one is legally entitled to a lawyer doesn't mean one will a) understand that fully at the time of interrogation, especially if one is a minor or a foreigner b) trust that a court-appointed lawyer will actually work for your best interests c) actually get a court-appointed lawyer who does work for your best interests. So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer pre…

Minors can't be interrogated without a representative. The Miranda reading should mean they understand the right to a lawyer. You have to trust that any lawyer will work for your best interest since they tend to be paid regardless of outcome. If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial. Same for private attorneys. "So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has…

No, you have the right to an attorney.

And what's popularized by TV, through dozens of police procedurals, most of which could be fairly accurately termed "copaganda," is the idea that asking for a lawyer is what guilty people do.

And, again: even if you actually have an attorney present with you, it is not guaranteed that they will be effective, and your handwaving that "If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial" does not negate the fact that a) people can, and do, take bad advice from attorneys that results in devastating plea bargains, b) actually proving they didn't work in your best interest is nontrivial, and c) even if you can do that, a retrial also requires an attorney, which you probably still can't afford to hire, so you're just getting another public defender, and also, in the vast majority of cases, takes place while you are still in prison...and will likely take months to years.

In general, your assumptions are very much that for someone wrongfully accused, the justice system will be kind and work in the most ideal way possible. I would not seek to deny that that can happen (particularly for affluent white men); my point is simply that it is only one end of the spectrum of possibilities, and far from the most likely for people who are further down the socioeconomic ladder.

Edit to add: Re: Miranda rights, the Supreme Court recently gutted that, making it far, far more difficult to ensure that any given accused has been read and understands their rights.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#176

Post by silexia »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #174
silexia wrote: post #170

I see lots of these "wrongful conviction" articles that are not very convincing. Claiming that we somehow know better decades later with less than 1% of the evidence still available that the original judge and jury had seems egotistical and foolish.

Yet this case had zero evidence other than a coerced confession. There was 100% (of zero) evidence available. The original judge and jury had nothing to go on but the confession.

Are you sure? You sat there in that courtroom decades ago and heard all the testimony and viewed all the evidence? Or are you going off of a blog post written decades later?

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#177

Post by giantg2 »

motoxpro wrote: post #173
giantg2 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How is that not problematic?" Because that's an unrealistic scenario (based on my other points). You have access to a lawyer even if you don't have money. The confession can (and should) be verified. There are ways to do this with safeguards. "Huh? I've never been so saddened by a comment actually." It sounds like you already have your mind made up. Otherwise I strongly suggest looking into proper interrogation tech…

Who verifies the confession? Once I have the confession that I wanted to get, whether because I was biased, malevolent or truly believe I was right, I have no incentive to verify what I just did. I feel like you are living in a fantasy world where people are "good" and "legal" all the time. This scenario right here proves otherwise. The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point…

"I feel like you are living in a fantasy world where people are "good" and "legal" all the time."

"The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point of view who have never lived out what happens in the real world."

You don't know me or my experiences. It's sad to see someone on HN blindly attack someone. Because from my perspective, you seem to be the one who is uninformed. Please do some research on the methods of taking and verifying confessions.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#178

Post by giantg2 »

danaris wrote: post #175
giantg2 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minors can't be interrogated without a representative. The Miranda reading should mean they understand the right to a lawyer. You have to trust that any lawyer will work for your best interest since they tend to be paid regardless of outcome. If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial. Same for private attorneys. "So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has…

No, you have the right to an attorney. And what's popularized by TV, through dozens of police procedurals, most of which could be fairly accurately termed "copaganda," is the idea that asking for a lawyer is what guilty people do . And, again: even if you actually have an attorney present with you, it is not guaranteed that they will be effective, and your handwaving that "If they don't work for your best interest an…

"No, you have the right to an attorney."

No what?

"it is not guaranteed that they will be effective,"

Umm, yeah you do. If you have ineffective counsel you can get a new one or even a new trial. That is a legal right.

"a) people can, and do, take bad advice from attorneys that results in devastating plea bargains, b) actually proving they didn't work in your best interest is nontrivial, and c) even if you can do that, a retrial also requires an attorney, which you probably still can't afford to hire, so you're just getting another public defender, and also, in the vast majority of cases, takes place while you are still in prison...and will likely take months to years."

Your point? All of this is also true with private lawyers.

"In general, your assumptions are very much that for someone wrongfully accused, the justice system will be kind and work in the most ideal way possible."

Not at all! Stop incorrectly patronizing me! I believe more or less the opposite.

"Re: Miranda rights, the Supreme Court recently gutted that, making it far, far more difficult to ensure that any given accused has been read and understands their rights."

Source?

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#179

Post by motoxpro »

giantg2 wrote: post #177
motoxpro wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who verifies the confession? Once I have the confession that I wanted to get, whether because I was biased, malevolent or truly believe I was right, I have no incentive to verify what I just did. I feel like you are living in a fantasy world where people are "good" and "legal" all the time. This scenario right here proves otherwise. The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point…

"I feel like you are living in a fantasy world where people are "good" and "legal" all the time." "The sad part is just that people have opinions about things from a theoretical point of view who have never lived out what happens in the real world." You don't know me or my experiences. It's sad to see someone on HN blindly attack someone. Because from my perspective, you seem to be the one who is uninformed. Please d…

>> unrealistic scenario

Not attacking, pointing out other perspectives. You saying it is an unrealistic scenario is what I was arguing against in that not only is it realistic, but I have seen it happen.

You've made my point once again with your comment: "Please do some research on the methods of taking and verifying confessions."

Yes, sure, ideally we should all be informed about the law, but if I happen to not be, and I happen to get arrested, there is no way that I can know that my interrogator is lying and that there are ways around that. Yes, I know lawyers are provided, that doesn't mean that people have my best interest in mind, etc. Like I said, speaking from personal experience of SEEING this happen to people.

My point is that you are speaking from a position of "being informed" when not everyone is informed, can get informed, wants to get informed, etc. This is why we have protections, this is why we hire lawyers, because we can't be "informed" about everything. That is besides the fact of my moral disagreement that a professional working for the government should be able to lie to a child so that they confess to a crime and potentially get life in prison (as seen here).

I'll leave it there though. Not trying to attack so if it came across that way, sorry.

Re: MythBusters Helped a Wrongly Convicted Man Prove His Innocence

#180

Post by Stevvo »

nickkell wrote: post #157
Stevvo wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK it's commonplace because it's a very effective tactic on victims and first time offenders. Anyone who has been arrested before learns to answer either "no" or "no comment" to all questions, so deception doesn't come into play anymore.

I'm not sure that's correct. As far as I'm aware they can't claim to have evidence implicating the suspect if they don't really have it.

Only in the interview. Outside of the interview they do whatever they want.
Post reply on HN