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

41–50 of 99 posts

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

#41

Post by DanielBMarkham »

What a ludicrous idea. Cops break into your house, arrest you for a crime you didn't commit, take months to figure out they blew it -- then what? You get a greeting card in the mail announcing that you're actually innocent? Maybe some flowers?

Sorry, no.

I support the use of force, including lethal force, on violent criminals when the public is in danger. I support the appropriate use of force otherwise. But in return for that support, there has to be some kind of feedback mechanism in place. I understand that workplace accidents happen, and nobody's perfect. But ruining somebody's life isn't the same as an IT worker forgetting his security badge one day. "Actual innocence" looks like a gimmick to make the poor rube you screwed over feel better, not evolve the system to a better state.

As bad as these stories are, my concern is for the next victim -- and the next thousand after that.

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

#43

Post by vidarh »

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.

No, they are saying it filters out some portion of the defendants. The article also says they carry out a fresh review of the case, and:

"The ASA shall confirm that no other probative forensic testing can be conducted and that no other witnesses can be identified and interviewed," the protocol reads. "At the end of this review, if both the ASA and supervising ASA(s) either no longer believe there exists a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt or believe there no longer exists a reasonable likelihood of conviction, then the case shall be dismissed without prejudice."

So, basically: The defendant asserts they're innocent and are prepared to take a polygraph and there is insufficient evidence or no real prospect of prosecution anyway.

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

#44

Post by arethuza »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #32
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

From that article:

"The use of the ordeal in medieval England was very sensitive to status and reputation in the community."

Sounds like that part hasn't changed much.

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

#45

Post by coldtea »

yungudu wrote: post #30
tombrossman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating. I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else f…

But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike. Sounds like a douchebag.

>But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we?

Well, I want him alright. There are tons of examples of people who have done such things, including repeatedly, that include some great artists, writers, inventors, businessmen, etc. And of course tons of people who went to to change their ways, become great parents, etc.

We could lose some people thinking like your statement above from society, though.

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

#46

Post by arethuza »

tombrossman wrote: post #26
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ...

This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating. I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else f…

If he had taken the plea deal would he have avoided life in prison?

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

#47

Post by vidarh »

morgante wrote: post #40
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe - they do actually mention one case in the article where the review yielded more evidence and made their case stronger.

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

#48

Post by vidarh »

cafard wrote: post #31
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..

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?

Which is still irrelevant here. The willingness - or not - to take the test acts as a filter. Beyond that, a case review is carried out. If the case review finds they have sufficient evidence, the test does not matter. If the case review finds they have insufficient evidence, then you should not have been charged in the first place.

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

#49

Post by vidarh »

yungudu wrote: post #30
tombrossman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating. I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else f…

But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike. Sounds like a douchebag.

I'd personally prefer to have a car thief going around, than someone who thinks a minor property crime is sufficient grounds for locking someone up for life going around.

> And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike

At this point one should stop for a moment and ponder why that might be, and not be satisfied until you have an answer.

When society is so broken that someone is willing to risk life in prison over a theft, then to me the problem is the society that left him without better alternatives first and foremost, not the thief.

Post reply on HN