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

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

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

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

#31

Post by cafard »

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..

William Casey, who was Reagan's first CIA director, told journalists that passing polygraphs is an easily learned skill. Some may not need the training: if there is no psychological stress involved in lying, why should there be physical symptoms?

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

#32

Post by thaumasiotes »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #23
ithkuil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

> though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants So basically does that mean that although they don't trust the polygraph, they trust the defendant's trust in the polygraph? That seems shaky and subject to change.

We have the same idea today about the older trial by ordeal. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal#Theoretical_ap... :

> According to a theory put forward by economics professor Peter Leeson, trial by ordeal may have been effective at sorting the guilty from the innocent. On the assumption that defendants were believers in divine intervention for the innocent, then only the truly innocent would choose to endure a trial; guilty defendants would confess or settle cases instead. Therefore, the theory goes, church and judicial authorities could routinely rig ordeals so that the participants—presumably innocent—could pass them. To support this theory, Leeson points to the great latitude given to the priests in administering the ordeal and interpreting the results of the ordeal. He also points to the overall high exoneration rate of accused persons undergoing the ordeal, when intuitively one would expect a very high proportion of people carrying a red hot iron to be badly burned and thus fail the ordeal.

This is exactly the same thing, but with an ordeal that poses no actual physical risk even without cheating by the officiator.

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

#33

Post by realusername »

ezoe wrote: post #14

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

Same reaction on my case. A Polygraph test (?!?), we are supposed to be in 2016 now ! Is that antique method seriously still used in the US ? It looks like a joke. Better throwing a dice at that point.

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

#34

Post by roel_v »

Nutmog wrote: post #25
ezoe wrote: post #14

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

Nor do eyewitness stories. Nor does recognizing someone from a single photo instead of a proper lineup. These are cases where there's already no reliable evidence in the first place. Really, they should go to court and it would be clear they're not guilty but the polygraph just helps shortcut it. Even better would be no polygraph and just release people when they find they don't have any reliable evidence.

"but the polygraph just helps shortcut it"

The point is that polygraphs are utter nonsense, at about the same level as reading tea leaves. Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.

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

#35

Post by alkonaut »

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

Next step: let's not try to put so many people in jail even if they are guilty. It obviously costs a lot of money and provably doesn't have any effect on crime (per dollar spent) that is near spending that money in better ways.

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

#36

Post by [deleted] »

Nutmog wrote: post #25
ezoe wrote: post #14

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

Nor do eyewitness stories. Nor does recognizing someone from a single photo instead of a proper lineup. These are cases where there's already no reliable evidence in the first place. Really, they should go to court and it would be clear they're not guilty but the polygraph just helps shortcut it. Even better would be no polygraph and just release people when they find they don't have any reliable evidence.

[deleted]

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

#37

Post by konschubert »

> "That's distinct from 'I didn't get treated fairly' [.. ] It's not, 'Some of the evidence was obtained unlawfully, there was an incorrect ruling by the court, [...] - no, you actually have the wrong person here...they're actually innocent."

So there is a difference between real innocence and "we-are-not-able-to-convict-him-but-we-think-he-is-guilty" innocence? And the prosecutor gets to decide?

Then why even bother with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s

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

#39

Post by [deleted] »

konschubert wrote: post #37

> "That's distinct from 'I didn't get treated fairly' [.. ] It's not, 'Some of the evidence was obtained unlawfully, there was an incorrect ruling by the court, [...] - no, you actually have the wrong person here...they're actually innocent." So there is a difference between real innocence and "we-are-not-able-to-convict-him-but-we-think-he-is-guilty" innocence? And the prosecutor gets to decide? Then why even bother…

[deleted]

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

#40

Post by morgante »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #17
ithkuil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 wha…

Presumably if you're actually guilty you don't want them going back and collecting more evidence on your case.
Post reply on HN