Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system? • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by tombrossman » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:00 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #49

yungudu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony, but I agree that I don't want car thieves locked up for decades as this is unreasonable. The real problem is often drug abuse or mental health issues and those don't get fixed in prison.

I had my car stolen a few years before I got seated on that jury and while it was unpleasant, I got my car back a couple weeks later in perfect condition. The most annoying thing was that the police had it towed to an impound lot and didn't tell me for several days, and I had to pay for the tow and daily impound fees! I explained this during the jury polling and was really surprised to still be seated.

It was a different police force handling my stolen car and I remember thinking that they were total clowns compared to the ones I saw years later as a juror.

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

#62

Post by coldtea » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:12 PM UTC

tombrossman wrote: post #61

vidarh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony, but I agree that I don't want car thieves locked up for decades as this is unreasonable. The real problem is often drug abuse or mental health issues and those don't get fixed in prison. I had my car stolen a few years before I got seated on that jury and while it was unpleasant, I got my car back a couple weeks later in perfect condition. The most an…

>Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony

"Felony" is a legal term -- and the "seriousness" is related to the laws passed and the culture around them. Heck, it might not even reflect society's opinion of the offense.

Back in the day stealing a car for a ride (equally a "felony" as stealing it permanently) was something "delinquent youth" did routinely, without much harm to anyone -- the practice, common in many countries, is called a "joyride" (nowadays electronic locks make it more difficult -- it was much more prevalent back in the day).

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

#63

Post by konschubert » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:21 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #51

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.

My point is that the distinction between "actually innocent" and "not convicted due to a technicality" basically means that due process is circumvented.

If the police doesn't have the right to search the house but does it anyway, it can now turn a person from "actually innocent" to "technically not convicted". Which is for some purposes halfway to a conviction. This means that police gets rewarded for doing wrongful searches.

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

#64

Post by tyingq » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:25 PM UTC

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…

There are also lots of local variations that are similar to 3 strikes, but don't get as much attention. Like "enhancing charges" based on prior convictions. Where, for example, shoplifting can be enhanced to a high level felony with a 20 year sentence.

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

#65

Post by toast0 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:31 PM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #10

fsloth wrote: post #4

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?

> [...] After 414 days in the St Clair County jail, he went home. and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1]. Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation…

414 days in jail awaiting trial doesn't sound like a speedy trial to me, as required (but not defined) in the 6th amendment, either.

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

#66

Post by Silhouette » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:34 PM UTC

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…

Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.

Presumably that is why the jury is not told. If the jury's job is to determine, as fairly and impartially as possible, whether someone committed a crime of which they have been accused, then it makes sense to hide other information that does not affect that fact but could cause emotional rather than logical and evidence-based deliberation.

The problem here doesn't seem to be hiding the full situation from you and your colleagues on the jury. The problem seems to be that having fulfilled your purpose in the proceedings by making the determination you were asked to make, and the judge was then denied the ability to fulfill their purpose in the proceedings properly because their hands were tied by the Three Strikes rule and so the punishment arguably did not fit the crime.

Of course, whether the way the jury is kept in the dark in such a case stands up to ethical scrutiny in light of principles like jury nullification is a different question.

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

#67

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:47 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #62

tombrossman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony, but I agree that I don't want car thieves locked up for decades as this is unreasonable. The real problem is often drug abuse or mental health issues and those don't get fixed in prison. I had my car stolen a few years before I got seated on that jury and while it was unpleasant, I got my car back a couple weeks later in perfect condition. The most an…

> Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony "Felony" is a legal term -- and the "seriousness" is related to the laws passed and the culture around them. Heck, it might not even reflect society's opinion of the offense. Back in the day stealing a car for a ride (equally a "felony" as stealing it permanently) was something "delinquent youth" did routinely, without much harm to anyone -- the prac…

without much harm to anyone

Apart from that the joyriders are usually doing it so they can drive dangerously, which can and does result in people getting killed or seriously injured. And the thousands of pounds of property damage.

Not that it deserves a life sentence, but delinquency shouldn't be an excuse but a reason for intervention.

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

#68

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:53 PM UTC

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…

Between corrupt prosecutors, 3 strike laws, mandatory minimums, and more subtle biases, I would be hard pressed to convict. The news over the last decade or so has convinced me that nullification is the only fair decision for a juror to make.

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

#69

Post by drjesusphd » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:56 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #65

ithkuil wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] After 414 days in the St Clair County jail, he went home. and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1]. Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation…

414 days in jail awaiting trial doesn't sound like a speedy trial to me, as required (but not defined) in the 6th amendment, either.

Defendants are often advised to waive their right to a speedy trial to better prepare a case.

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

#70

Post by mason240 » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

realusername wrote: post #33

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.

> Is that antique method seriously still used in the US ?

No, it's not.