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

51–60 of 99 posts

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

#51

Post by vidarh »

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…

No, they are saying there is a difference between a defendant saying "I did not do it" and a defendant saying "you didn't have a right to search my house, so the evidence you found there is inadmissible" or similar. E.g. the defendants asserting that they did not do the crime vs. those who assert they should not be convicted of the crime.

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

#52

Post by dsr_ »

Underlying causes include: in many US states, the District Attorney (chief prosecutor) is an elected position. In many US states, local judges are elected.

A major winning strategy of the last hundred years or so is the "law and order" platform, in which the politicians exploit racism, classism and even ageism to provoke fear of violent crime. The politician promises that they will increase arrest rates, win trials, and impose higher sentences in order to protect the [white, middle-class, elderly] citizens from the [black or hispanic, lower-class, teenaged] hoodlums.

And they win, and they put these policies into effect.

Do they work? Well, they work at getting the politicians re-elected, and that's the only real success criterion.

It turns out that if you ask Americans what to do about most issues, and you phrase the questions in non-aggressive ways, and you invoke empathy -- they mostly agree that treating people kindly is important. That innocence should be an absolute defense. That everyone should get necessary health care, and nobody should starve or be cripplingly poor. That people should work if they can, but not be abandoned if they can't.

But those positions are not very effective for the media and politicians, so they go with what works for their goals instead.

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

#53

Post by mirimir »

m_eiman wrote: post #42

It appears from the article that if you're wrongfully jailed in the US, you're not automatically entitled to compensation for lost income and other expenses caused by the jail time. Surely this must be incorrect?

Nope, that's just how it is.

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

#54

Post by vidarh »

roel_v wrote: post #34
Nutmog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted.

The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review.

> No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.

In an ideal world, no. But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work.

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

#55

Post by mirimir »

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…

So why wouldn't defendants blurt out that this would be their third strike? Or would that trigger death penalty?

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

#56

Post by m_eiman »

mirimir wrote: post #53
m_eiman wrote: post #42

It appears from the article that if you're wrongfully jailed in the US, you're not automatically entitled to compensation for lost income and other expenses caused by the jail time. Surely this must be incorrect?

Nope, that's just how it is.

That's… crazy.

In Sweden you're entitled to compensation for:

* suffering (starting by default at $3700 for the first month, down to half per month after six months)

* loss of income (including sick pay, unemployment pay, etc)

* expenses (rent not compensated)

Source in Swedish: http://www.jk.se/ansokan/frihetsberovande/

In some extreme cases people who have been wrongfully convicted of e.g. murder and served many years in jail have received up to about two million USD.

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

#57

Post by fghrthtb »

roel_v wrote: post #34
Nutmog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you see the polygraph test doesn't have to be accurate. It's not there to actually tell whether the person is guilty. It's there so that the police can save face. Instead of "we made a mistake, we charged the wrong person", they can say "we charged this person, all the evidence suggested they were guilty, but, look at this polygraph test! It proves they are actually innocent". The police must not be questioned, if you believe the police are corrupt as I do then you become very unhappy/restless. Such an attitude does not lend itself to a cohesive society...

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

#58

Post by chris_wot »

vidarh wrote: post #54
roel_v wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review. > No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design. In an ideal world, no…

If a polygraph is a filter that just doesn't work, then it's a total waste of time as it won't work as a filter, or anything else for that matter.

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

#59

Post by roel_v »

vidarh wrote: post #54
roel_v wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review. > No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design. In an ideal world, no…

" But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work."

Uh, that's not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is that those who actually committed crimes are let off because they learned how to 'beat' a polygraph, or who just got plain lucky. And if you know already that your suspect is innocent, then why the polygraph?

Look I understand how adding some voodoo scapegoat to a complicated social construct can be used to change institutional mores that are impenetrable otherwise. So in that sense, I have no rational reason to discourage the use of a polygraph here; just like one can say 'if homeopathy helps people, why shouldn't they use it? And why shouldn't we finance it from the same means we finance regular health care?'. From a utilitarian point of view, there is no denying this. I maintain that it's still bad (maybe not a net negative, but a negative still) to use acknowledge superstition this way.

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

#60

Post by tombrossman »

arethuza wrote: post #46
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…

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

This happened when I lived in California and it was my understanding that for any potential 'third strike' (any serious crime that could be a felony) a trial was mandatory. No deal could be offered. The judge explained this very briefly and I didn't read up on it to clarify afterwards.
Post reply on HN