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

81–90 of 99 posts

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

#81

Post by Scarblac »

chris_wot wrote: post #58
vidarh wrote: post #54

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…

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.

The _threat_ of a polygraph test might filter out some guilty people who are afraid of it. They don't use the result of the test for anything, according to the article.

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

#82

Post by talmand »

dsr_ wrote: post #52

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,…

Not that I disagree, but there are examples of the opposite sentiment being used by elected officials during campaigns to get certain demographics to vote for them.

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

#83

Post by talmand »

pjc50 wrote: post #22
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?

Racism and wildly exaggerated fear of crime caused people to effectively demand a justice system that worked like this. So long as it only ruins black lives and those of white people who are easy to dismiss as feckless, the rest of the voters are happy with it.

You're not going back far enough. I would say that throughout much of history there has been similar problems with all justice systems.

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

#84

Post by talmand »

thirdsun wrote: post #77
anexprogrammer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Particularly surprising since the US is such a lawsuit-happy country where it seems you can expect some form of compensation even for borderline ridiculous issues. Coffee too hot? Jackpot! Life severely ruined by being wrongfully convicted? Well, sorry about that.

I believe there is some sort of automatic compensation for being wrongfully convicted in many areas, depending on the court that did the conviction. Being wrongfully jailed before conviction is a different matter.

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

#85

Post by mcphage »

mason240 wrote: post #76
coldtea wrote: post #45

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? 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…

We have plenty of people in society that we don't need to keep car thieves on the street stealing cars.

> we don't need to keep car thieves on the street stealing cars

Sure, but we'd probably be better off finding something better than jail as well.

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

#86

Post by xlm1717 »

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?

Not just the justice system, but society in general. If you're arbitrarily targeted by the internet outrage mob for doing or saying something they don't like, your life can be ruined without a fair due process, and the internet does not forgive even if you're innocent.

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

#87

Post by logfromblammo »

mason240 wrote: post #70
realusername wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Polygraph is generally only used in the US to intimidate government employees and to trick criminal suspects into making confessions.

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

#88

Post by isleyaardvark »

mason240 wrote: post #76
coldtea wrote: post #45

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? 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…

We have plenty of people in society that we don't need to keep car thieves on the street stealing cars.

Instead we'll pay to keep them imprisoned for 40-50 years for stealing one car. We should spend that money for incarceration because the cost of one car is too great. You think that is a wise choice?

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

#89

Post by vidarh »

roel_v wrote: post #59
vidarh wrote: post #54

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…

> The worst that can happen is that those who actually committed crimes are let off because they learned how to 'beat' a polygraph

They would also need to "beat" the case review of the available evidence. If there is no evidence, they shouldn't be convicted anyway - even if they are guilty.

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

#90

Post by TheCoelacanth »

thirdsun wrote: post #77
anexprogrammer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Particularly surprising since the US is such a lawsuit-happy country where it seems you can expect some form of compensation even for borderline ridiculous issues. Coffee too hot? Jackpot! Life severely ruined by being wrongfully convicted? Well, sorry about that.

> Coffee too hot? Jackpot.

That is a bad example of a frivolous lawsuit. The coffee in question was served much hotter than industry standard and they had been repeatedly warned that their coffee was dangerously hot. If you spill coffee on yourself, you expect to get burned. You don't expect it to instantly melt your flesh. They were very rightly held responsible for the extra damage that they caused by serving their coffee at a dangerously high temperature.

Post reply on HN