71–80 of 99 posts
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.
How is that not a major issue for a media campaign or politicians of one flavour or another?
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…
So why wouldn't defendants blurt out that this would be their third strike? Or would that trigger death penalty?
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?
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…
So why wouldn't defendants blurt out that this would be their third strike? Or would that trigger death penalty?
Polygraph? What kind of joke is this? Polygraph don't prove or disprove the innocence. It's useless.
> 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 "de novo" or "from the beginning" review of all the evidence.
So basically, the polygraph is a bluff.
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.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, that's just how it is.
So someone's life gets ruined, job and home lost, spends time in prison due to a mistake or worse, and gets no comeback at all? How is that not a major issue for a media campaign or politicians of one flavour or another?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
No the worst that can happen is that someone who actually is innocent fails the polygraph and goes to jail anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why wouldn't defendants blurt out that this would be their third strike? Or would that trigger death penalty?
Depending on the defendants' strategy this approach might backfire and isn't useful if you're looking for a not-guilty verdict. "Oh, that guy had a criminal history? 2 strikes already? Yeah, he probably did it."
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.