Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35971935
12 comments
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 to deserve this treatment?
[1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...
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 to deserve this treatment?
[1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...
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.
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.
...
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 for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification.
We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.
The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.
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 for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification.
We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.
The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So why wouldn't defendants blurt out that this would be their third strike? Or would that trigger death penalty?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>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).
"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).
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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?
> 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.
Sure, but we'd probably be better off finding something better than jail as well.
I'd rather get rid of the bankers and advertisers (for starters) and keep the car thieves.
Actually, I'd rather we get rid of the cars...
Actually, I'd rather we get rid of the cars...
That you would prefer car thieves to cars really says it all.
Sure, but you forgot to mention which are these "all".
Besides, cars kill far more people than car thieves (actually, they are the leading cause of death in young people), pollute the air, have a big environmental impact for their construction (including electric cars), contribute to urban noise pollution, and influence city planning in creating monstrous (sub)urban sprawls. And that's before the billions spent on oil for car use, and the millions killed to ensure first world countries control it and get it for cheap.
Besides, cars kill far more people than car thieves (actually, they are the leading cause of death in young people), pollute the air, have a big environmental impact for their construction (including electric cars), contribute to urban noise pollution, and influence city planning in creating monstrous (sub)urban sprawls. And that's before the billions spent on oil for car use, and the millions killed to ensure first world countries control it and get it for cheap.
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.
Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.
Article acknowledges the power of local prosecutors, but not the perverse incentives and lack of counterweights leading to high conviction rates.
If it wasn't the US, it would be classified as a human rights violation. This is worse than imprisoning or torturing political prisoners because of the scale of it. At least political prisoners knew they were breaking the law. They're also usually fewer in number except during revolutions/etc.
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.
No, it's a moral panic.
Polygraph? What kind of joke is this? Polygraph don't prove or disprove the innocence. It's useless.
From the article:
> 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.
> 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.
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.
No, it's not.
Polygraph is generally only used in the US to intimidate government employees and to trick criminal suspects into making confessions.
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.
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
No the worst that can happen is that someone who actually is innocent fails the polygraph and goes to jail anyway.
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.
I think that ethically that's problematic. I consider that to be coercion based on pseudoscience. There are people out there who are afraid of it for a variety of reasons - I can think of a few off the top of my head:
They are concerned they might ask a question unrelated to the case that incriminates them
They are concerned that they ask a question that causes them personal problems, even if they are innocent (like past infidelity from 20 years ago, etc)
They are concerned that the polygraph might be wrong and incriminate them for something they haven't done
If they don't use the results of the test for anything, then it's a deceptive interrogation technique and one that should be stopped.
They are concerned they might ask a question unrelated to the case that incriminates them
They are concerned that they ask a question that causes them personal problems, even if they are innocent (like past infidelity from 20 years ago, etc)
They are concerned that the polygraph might be wrong and incriminate them for something they haven't done
If they don't use the results of the test for anything, then it's a deceptive interrogation technique and one that should be stopped.
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...
No, the article says that the result of the test does not matter. It is bluff.
[deleted]
... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.
"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.
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.
"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.
> No, they are saying it filters out some portion of the defendants.
Yes, they filter out the ones who
- believe in polygraphs and
- believe they would fail
Yes, they filter out the ones who
- believe in polygraphs and
- believe they would fail
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 endure a trial; guilty defendants would confess or settle cases instead. Therefore, the theory goes, church and judicial authorities could routinely rig ordeals so that the participants—presumably innocent—could pass them. To support this theory, Leeson points to the great latitude given to the priests in administering the ordeal and interpreting the results of the ordeal. He also points to the overall high exoneration rate of accused persons undergoing the ordeal, when intuitively one would expect a very high proportion of people carrying a red hot iron to be badly burned and thus fail the ordeal.
This is exactly the same thing, but with an ordeal that poses no actual physical risk even without cheating by the officiator.
> 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 endure a trial; guilty defendants would confess or settle cases instead. Therefore, the theory goes, church and judicial authorities could routinely rig ordeals so that the participants—presumably innocent—could pass them. To support this theory, Leeson points to the great latitude given to the priests in administering the ordeal and interpreting the results of the ordeal. He also points to the overall high exoneration rate of accused persons undergoing the ordeal, when intuitively one would expect a very high proportion of people carrying a red hot iron to be badly burned and thus fail the ordeal.
This is exactly the same thing, but with an ordeal that poses no actual physical risk even without cheating by the officiator.
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.
"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.
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 what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.
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 what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.
The polygraph is a fig leaf for the real process, which is getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake. Without unravelling too much of the process or making anyone fear for their job.
It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.
It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.
Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.
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..
"they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants."
So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty?
Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty?
Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous.
However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?
I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.
Except for the one guilty party who somehow ended up uncovering more evidence that they did the crime.
In other words it's the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of trial by fire.
Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor.
Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)
Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor.
Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It's rather like part of your civic responsibilities as a citizen. Like jury duty.
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.
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.
"Crazy idea: let's not try to put innocent people in jail"
Man whoever thought of that is a fucking radical and needs to be stopped /s
Man whoever thought of that is a fucking radical and needs to be stopped /s
"Then there's the fact that he had to pay the county $5 per day while he was on an ankle monitor, plus the cost of a landline to carry the monitor's signal. [...] She says they're still paying their legal bill in instalments."
Just a thought: if you're wrongly convicted, don't you have a possibility to get compensation ? But if you're case is just dismissed before even going to trial, does it mean that the authorities have no obligations to reimburse you any legal expense you might have had while planning for the worse?
Just a thought: if you're wrongly convicted, don't you have a possibility to get compensation ? But if you're case is just dismissed before even going to trial, does it mean that the authorities have no obligations to reimburse you any legal expense you might have had while planning for the worse?
Depending on who's budget that compensation comes out of, you may well just be giving another financial incentive to put/keep innocent people in jail.
Next step: let's not try to put so many people in jail even if they are guilty. It obviously costs a lot of money and provably doesn't have any effect on crime (per dollar spent) that is near spending that money in better ways.
> "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 with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s
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 with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s
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.
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.
[deleted]
Only in America would 'actual innocence' be treated as a novelty!!
[deleted]
Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects;
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
[deleted]
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.