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

People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

psychologicalscience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#191

Post by HWR_14 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #165
madsbuch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as long as social order is maintained That would rely on the participants believing that truth is the major consideration, right? If I knew that I would have to prove my innocence, that would lead to a lot of overhead for self surveillance and documentation. Ie. If the custom of just accepting false confessions becomes a widely accepted practice it could potentially lead to reduction of social order.

In the US, a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence is not sufficient to reopen a death penalty conviction, so long as the court case was performed fairly.

As I understand it, a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence that would have led no "reasonable jury" to convict is entertained, assuming that all procedural appeals were not exhausted.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#192

Post by anonymouskimmer »

UncleMeat wrote: post #189
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a good article about it. Scalia's claim was in the dissent, so this isn't established legal doctrine in the US, and the Supreme Court has in fact ruled in favor of the convicted on more than one occasion, but as the article shows it has actually happened as practiced legal doctrine in at least one case. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/justice-antonin-scalias-rebuke-of-...

Scalia joined the majority in Herrera v. Collins, where innocence could not be used to justify a Habeas claim.

Reading that it's specific to an 8th amendment claim.

It definitely is horrific. It looks like further Supreme Court cases allowed actual innocence claims under other standards, or for specific types of evidence. All of these were close decisions though, and I fear what a more 'conservative' court will allow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_v._Bell

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#193

Post by analog31 »

qup wrote: post #163
analog31 wrote: post #147

I'm reminded of a famous case in Chicago in which a juvenile confessed to murdering his mother, and even offered many details that could only have been known to the person who committed the crime. There were calls for trying the kid as an adult, reviving the death penalty, etc. Then it was discovered that the police had gotten their files mixed up, and the kid had actually confessed to the wrong crime.

Can you re-word this? It's hard to understand what you mean. Are you saying his mother was murdered, he confessed, but they mixed up the "unknowable details" from another crime, prompted the boy into knowing those, and then he confessed the unknowable details from another murder? It seems weird to say "he confessed to the wrong crime" given the circumstances, so I can't figure it out any other way.

Yes, exactly as you describe.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#194

Post by antifa »

splendor_spoon wrote: post #74
emodendroket wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately you do not have to look to the past or the other side of the globe to find an epidemic of false confessions.

What does this peppering of whataboutism add to the conversation?

Mentioning the USSR in a thread about Western researchers researching phenomenon that happens in the West while in the West: not whataboutism.

Pointing out the thing Western researchers were researching about in the West on Western subjects might happen in the West: extreme, egrecious, purely churlish whataboutism!

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#195

Post by UncleMeat »

HWR_14 wrote: post #191
UncleMeat wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence is not sufficient to reopen a death penalty conviction, so long as the court case was performed fairly.

As I understand it, a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence that would have led no "reasonable jury" to convict is entertained, assuming that all procedural appeals were not exhausted.

In Herrera, a majority of the jurors in the original case said they would not have voted to convict if the new evidence had been available.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#196

Post by UncleMeat »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #192
UncleMeat wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scalia joined the majority in Herrera v. Collins, where innocence could not be used to justify a Habeas claim.

Reading that it's specific to an 8th amendment claim. It definitely is horrific. It looks like further Supreme Court cases allowed actual innocence claims under other standards, or for specific types of evidence. All of these were close decisions though, and I fear what a more 'conservative' court will allow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_v._Bell

Scalia's concurrence was focused on the 8th, but the case presented both 8th and 14th amendment arguments for allowing habeas.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#197

Post by anonymouskimmer »

UncleMeat wrote: post #196
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading that it's specific to an 8th amendment claim. It definitely is horrific. It looks like further Supreme Court cases allowed actual innocence claims under other standards, or for specific types of evidence. All of these were close decisions though, and I fear what a more 'conservative' court will allow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_v._Bell

Scalia's concurrence was focused on the 8th, but the case presented both 8th and 14th amendment arguments for allowing habeas.

Schlup was two years later, but searching just now I guess it isn't that strong of a protection:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/schlup-v...

> Although this is a correct ruling, the Court's opinion is not likely to significantly protect innocent people from being executed. First, the Court failed to recognize key points of distinction between the evidence of innocence that Schlup presented and the evidence of innocence presented in Herrera v. Collins. Because Schlup's evidence was much stronger, the Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether the Constitution bars the execution of a factually innocent person. The implication of the Court's silence is that full habeas hearings are unavailable on straight-forward constitutional claims of actual innocence. Second, the Court's analysis of the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception does not appear to contradict the argument that the exception is a rule of permission. Thus, after Schlup, Federal courts will likely be free to dismiss the habeas petitions of State prisoners even where new evidence of innocence makes it "more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted."

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#198

Post by FrustratedMonky »

yosito wrote: post #28

> The fact that the students appeared to internalize the false events to the extent that they did highlights the fundamental malleability of memory This seems like a bit of a leap to assume that this is about malleability rather than just lying to researchers and saying what they feel is expected. I could very easily imagine myself playing along with someone trying to convince me of false memories just because I don'…

It is impossible to discuss Psychology on HN. I think STEM type personalities are incapable of fathoming that the mind can be studied. I tend to think that the STEM personality has a lower than average ability for self-reflection, and thus they still think the mind is a mysterious phenomena that is beyond science. They aren't able to observe their own minds, and thus think it is impossible for anybody else to either.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#199

Post by krisoft »

kbrkbr wrote: post #161
krisoft wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand your argument. “People Can Be Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened” The test subject were people, they got convinced. They are not claiming that everyone under every circumstance can be convinced they commited any crime. Even if it can only happen sometimes to some people under some circumstances that would be of great importance to the process of justice.

You are right. I indeed thought only probabilities would matter here, when it is possibilities.

> You are right.

Thank you.

> thought only probabilities would matter here, when it is possibilities

Oh! That puts it very succintly. That is a very good way to express what i was thinking. I will use your phrasing in the future in similar cases where this distinction matters.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#200

Post by stubish »

Aerroon wrote: post #26

I wonder if this is why people can become angry and aggressive when you accuse them of something. That would provide a natural defense against this kind of suggestibility. It obviously wouldn't work with the modern police, because they would overpower you, but a few thousand years ago? I think it could've worked.

I think this is the mind defending its worldview, in the same way as people react when you question or present evidence that contradicts. And yes, it is a natural defense against changing your mind and can be rationalized as a survival strategy (my worldview has kept me alive and healthy so far, and adjusting it is increasing risk).
Post reply on HN