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.
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...
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.
...
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.
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.
How is that not a major issue for a media campaign or politicians of one flavour or another?
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.
Man whoever thought of that is a fucking radical and needs to be stopped /s
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?
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
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.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
