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

Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 149 posts

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#101

Post by thaumasiotes »

rytis wrote: post #99
stefan_ wrote: post #5

> Ms. Haddaway had demanded that the state dismiss unrelated drug charges against her grandson in exchange for her testimony against Mr. Smith and Mr. Faulkner. The recordings also show that the state refused to place that deal in writing to prevent Ms. Haddaway from being cross-examined on the issue. The state, in fact, dismissed the charges three days before Mr. Andrews’s trial was scheduled to begin. So they didn'…

For those not fluent in Latin (I had to look up) "quid pro quo" means "a favour or advantage granted in return for something".

The literal meaning is "what for what?".

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#102

Post by zapdrive »

rytis wrote: post #99
stefan_ wrote: post #5

> Ms. Haddaway had demanded that the state dismiss unrelated drug charges against her grandson in exchange for her testimony against Mr. Smith and Mr. Faulkner. The recordings also show that the state refused to place that deal in writing to prevent Ms. Haddaway from being cross-examined on the issue. The state, in fact, dismissed the charges three days before Mr. Andrews’s trial was scheduled to begin. So they didn'…

For those not fluent in Latin (I had to look up) "quid pro quo" means "a favour or advantage granted in return for something".

I think all Americans know what "quid pro quo" is. A President was impeached for that. It was most likely the impeachment of the century.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#103

Post by MertsA »

peteretep wrote: post #35
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

Do you know what indict means?

It's still a valid point, a prosecutor is the one presenting a case to a grand jury and has ample opportunity to tip the scales towards indictment or not. It's not like the accused have any similar opportunity to present their case to the grand jury, it's completely one-sided. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to note that an indictment is not comparable to a case that's been tried in court.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#104

Post by maccard »

haram_masala wrote: post #63
kmeisthax wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. What they do want is for immigrants to not fear deportation, so they want to make a stand that they'll fight immigration enforcement every step of the way. Hence why they'll get involved with these kinds of lawsuits. Even if ICE purely deported only people who committed crimes other than illegal entry or overstaying a visa; you'd still have plenty of immigrants afraid of all law enforcement. Yes, even the…

If someone is legally in the US, why would they fear having their life uprooted by having to show their papers?

Not in the US but the UK. [0] a large group of people who moved here legally between 50 and 70 years ago have been deported, detained and refused legal rights. This does happen.

[0] https://www.jcwi.org.uk/windrush-scandal-explained

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#105

Post by FriendlyNormie »

codezero wrote: post #48
agogdog wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people make comments like this do they seriously think providing a single example tears down the concept of systemic issues? This is a "it snowed today, so global warming doesn't exist" type of comment.

No, this is a troll looking to diminish the value of this community. Best move is not to comment or engage in the future. Downvote and/or flag. Or contact dang at HN moderation. Or, ask curious questions. Trolls hate curious questions.

No post body was provided.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#106

Post by nindalf »

zapdrive wrote: post #102
rytis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those not fluent in Latin (I had to look up) "quid pro quo" means "a favour or advantage granted in return for something".

I think all Americans know what "quid pro quo" is. A President was impeached for that. It was most likely the impeachment of the century.

Many Americans have heard of it and know that Trump was accused of it, but might not know what it means. And not everyone on this site is American.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#107

Post by mettamage »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #101
rytis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those not fluent in Latin (I had to look up) "quid pro quo" means "a favour or advantage granted in return for something".

The literal meaning is "what for what?".

So kind of like a "something for something" ?

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#108

Post by fighterpilot »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #82
AmericanChopper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think defendants should be compensated for fees and other damages for any level of failed prosecution, especially if they end up wrongfully incarcerated. If abusing the justice system has to come out of the budget, I think most of the incentives to do so will start to disappear.

No amount of money can replace the decades they took away from him.

It's not about revenge, tit for tat or subjective fairness. It's about stopping the behavior by creating the right disincentive. If that happens to be jail for an equivalent number of years, then great.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#109

Post by system2 »

zapdrive wrote: post #102
rytis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those not fluent in Latin (I had to look up) "quid pro quo" means "a favour or advantage granted in return for something".

I think all Americans know what "quid pro quo" is. A President was impeached for that. It was most likely the impeachment of the century.

You are overestimating the average Americans. I can assure you 90% wouldn't know what it is if you ask them.

Trying is free, ask your friends tomorrow and share the results here please.

Re: Jonathan Smith walks free after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment

#110

Post by FriendlyNormie »

suifbwish wrote: post #51
sthnblllII wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is justified in getting his property vandalized, and who actually will?

Seeing as our social system itself is responsible for his injustice, whoever is part of that construct that led to him being wrongfully imprisoned is to blame, which is basically all of us on some level. Everyone stood by and let it happen. Sad thing is most that this happens to will never have justice.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN