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

141–149 of 149 posts

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

#141

Post by zo1 »

mikeyouse wrote: post #130
uzakov wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's all well and good - but ICE doesn't just pursue border-crossers -- they regularly arrest and deport people here on Visa overstays.. Isn't visa overstay illegal? Is it not part of ICE job?

Visa overstay is a civil infraction, hence this whole debate - calling everyone who ICE deports “criminals” is factually wrong. You’re not a criminal if you leave your car parked in a street cleaning zone, you committed a civil infraction.

There is obviously a large range between a parking violations and the discussed immigration actions. Let's be honest from both sides and compare it to something kinda comparable: trespassing. When such a thing occurs, most reasonable people expect the police (ICE) to come and remove them from the private property (country).

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

#142

Post by uzakov »

mikeyouse wrote: post #130
uzakov wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's all well and good - but ICE doesn't just pursue border-crossers -- they regularly arrest and deport people here on Visa overstays.. Isn't visa overstay illegal? Is it not part of ICE job?

Visa overstay is a civil infraction, hence this whole debate - calling everyone who ICE deports “criminals” is factually wrong. You’re not a criminal if you leave your car parked in a street cleaning zone, you committed a civil infraction.

I think you are answered a slightly different question when you replied to my comment.

"Isn't visa overstay illegal?" is not related to "calling everyone who ICE deports “criminals” is factually wrong."

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

#143

Post by bb88 »

credit_guy wrote: post #136
bb88 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should actually read the unanimous opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals before sleazifying the work of the innocence project so vilely: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2020/... In its analysis of the palmprint evidence, the circuit court lost sight of the forest for the trees. The points of overriding importance are: (1) Ty Brooks burglarized Ms. Wilford’s house in break-in that…

Thanks for the link. Just to make a grand summary for everyone: * writ of innocence does not mean the court of appeals deems someone innocent. It means it finds that in light of the new evidence a retrial is warranted, and the accused enjoys the benefit of doubt once again (therefore he's "innocent until proven guilty"). It is certainly not an exoneration * both David Faulkner and Jonathan Smith were granted the writ…

I don't know why you insist on summarizing this case (again) when it's clear you can't be trusted to honestly reflect both sides.

Folks, ignore him, and just read the appeals court decision. They lay it out pretty clear and isn't hard to understand.

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

#144

Post by bb88 »

szc wrote: post #96
credit_guy wrote: post #16

Ms Haddaway made a secret deal with the prosecutors and the prosecutors did not reveal this. But did she lie? What this article forgets to mention is that Ms Haddaway wore a wire and got Jonathan Smith on tape that he committed the murder in order to get $60000 [1]. Here's part of the dialog for reader's convenience: "[BH:]Why were you in that field with blood all over ya? And they take, I seen ya goin’up the road th…

I've read the full report. Quoting just this is disturbingly misleading. There is a family relationship between JS and BH. Even in 1987 (the time of the murder) it appears to be hostile. At the time this snippet was recorded it was 13 years later and BH had manipulated the police into agreeing to drop drug charges against her grandson in exchange for testimony. Oddly this seems like a pattern, because BH also offered…

> What happened is very sad

Doubly so when they sent the wrong guys to jail. Because now it's three innocent lives that were affected adversely.

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

#145

Post by kmeisthax »

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?

If someone is honestly paying their taxes, why would they fear having their finances uprooted by being audited by the IRS?

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

#146

Post by bobmaxup »

avs733 wrote: post #116
bobmaxup wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't life in prison practically taking someone else's life? Would you even need that strong of an incentive to reduce the occurrence?

Punishment does not work as a deterrent. I propose this as a demonstration by the system that it is willing to respond to violations of the rules by the system. Such violations are inherently more problematic.

> Punishment does not work as a deterrent.

Why not?

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

#147

Post by credit_guy »

bb88 wrote: post #143
credit_guy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. Just to make a grand summary for everyone: * writ of innocence does not mean the court of appeals deems someone innocent. It means it finds that in light of the new evidence a retrial is warranted, and the accused enjoys the benefit of doubt once again (therefore he's "innocent until proven guilty"). It is certainly not an exoneration * both David Faulkner and Jonathan Smith were granted the writ…

I don't know why you insist on summarizing this case (again) when it's clear you can't be trusted to honestly reflect both sides. Folks, ignore him, and just read the appeals court decision. They lay it out pretty clear and isn't hard to understand.

> I don't know why you insist on ...

Because what's at stake here is the legitimacy of the government.

The message of this article is : "Innocent man stays behind bars for 20 years. Prosecutors are monsters".

And people buy this wholesale. Just read the other comments in this thread.

When people hear this time and again, and then they enter their echo bubble, the conclusion is that the US government is not any better than Putin's gang of thugs.

Folks: whenever you read about an "innocent" man wrongfully serving 20 years in prison, spend 15 min on Google to see if there's more to the story. We do not live in Putin's Russia.

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

#148

Post by bb88 »

credit_guy wrote: post #147
bb88 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you insist on summarizing this case (again) when it's clear you can't be trusted to honestly reflect both sides. Folks, ignore him, and just read the appeals court decision. They lay it out pretty clear and isn't hard to understand.

> I don't know why you insist on ... Because what's at stake here is the legitimacy of the government. The message of this article is : "Innocent man stays behind bars for 20 years. Prosecutors are monsters". And people buy this wholesale. Just read the other comments in this thread. When people hear this time and again, and then they enter their echo bubble, the conclusion is that the US government is not any better…

> Just read the other comments in this thread.

Right, because you chose to mislead the people in this thread by cherry-picking one heavily disputed fact from many to hinge your argument to make it look like he's still guilty.

When you're no longer an "honest broker" of the facts you no longer deserve anyone's time or effort to debate you on the facts.

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

#149

Post by psd1 »

pstuart wrote: post #137
publicola1990 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather better than that, can the government be sued for damages for wrongful imprisonment?

That doesn't address the aspect of "skin in the game". If the government pays out over your misconduct, why should you care?

I'll have a crack:

You are a bad cop, and you expose the government to liability. After a few such liabilities, the government makes it clear to your chief that this will affect his (or her) budget.

Your buddy officers, with their pensions threatened, confront you in the locker room.

Or perhaps your department takes out insurance, and the premiums are high and rising. Buddy officers etc. "I'm sorry Binks, but there's no money for CoL this year with this wrongful conviction thing."

I'm just speculating. If the government insists against visiting the negatives on the culprit law enforcement agency, then it's the citizens who suffer instead. But I think that the costs would eventually exert influence on the problem children.

Post reply on HN