Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system? • Hacker News Board

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#11

Post by arethuza » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:17 AM UTC

cmrx64 wrote: post #9

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.

You and GP really need to read the article fully. Even without doing other research, you dismiss the concept based on a false premise that the article itself clarifies..

"they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants."

So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty?

Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#12

Post by ithkuil » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:25 AM UTC

IIAOPSW wrote: post #5

"Crazy idea: let's not try to put innocent people in jail" Man whoever thought of that is a fucking radical and needs to be stopped /s

"Then there's the fact that he had to pay the county $5 per day while he was on an ankle monitor, plus the cost of a landline to carry the monitor's signal. [...] She says they're still paying their legal bill in instalments."

Just a thought: if you're wrongly convicted, don't you have a possibility to get compensation ? But if you're case is just dismissed before even going to trial, does it mean that the authorities have no obligations to reimburse you any legal expense you might have had while planning for the worse?

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#13

Post by kitd » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:30 AM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #11

cmrx64 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and GP really need to read the article fully. Even without doing other research, you dismiss the concept based on a false premise that the article itself clarifies..

" they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. " So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty? Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.

Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous.

However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#14

Post by ezoe » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:30 AM UTC

Polygraph? What kind of joke is this? Polygraph don't prove or disprove the innocence. It's useless.

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#15

Post by arethuza » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:37 AM UTC

kitd wrote: post #13

arethuza wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. " So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty? Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.

Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous. However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.

You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#16

Post by coldtea » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #4

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?

No. It's probably worse.

E.g. you can get life in prison for 3 "strikes", even if it's for something like stealing cookies. You know, the thing Europe derided back in 19th century with Jean Valjean.

A 15 year old can be sentenced to death (and has).

A man that's later proven innocent can rot in jail for decades without much recourse.

The 5% of the world's population have 25% of the world's prisoners.

...

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#17

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:53 AM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #7

gnud wrote: post #2

... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.

"Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a [...] review of all the evidence."

This just makes it worse!

They've publicly admitted that their test will have its result ignored. Any lawyer will quickly learn this and tell their clients, "you might as well, even if you fail, even if you are actually guilty (two entirely unrelated variables), they will still revisit your case".

What a waste of time, money and credibility. And this is the new, improved system. And it truly does seem better than what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#18

Post by specialist » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:53 AM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #15

kitd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous. However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.

You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?

I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#19

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:56 AM UTC

gnud wrote: post #2

... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.

The polygraph is a fig leaf for the real process, which is getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake. Without unravelling too much of the process or making anyone fear for their job.

It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.

Re: Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

#20

Post by specialist » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 9:56 AM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #4

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?

Article acknowledges the power of local prosecutors, but not the perverse incentives and lack of counterweights leading to high conviction rates.