4 ms·

If there is a 4% error rate with prisoners on death row, I'd imagine that it's even higher in the general prison population (because they're subject to less scr

If there is a 4% error rate with prisoners on death row, I'd imagine that it's even higher in the general prison population (because they're subject to less scrutiny?).

Nadya 11y ago
So long as the majority population deems an error rate to be preferable to letting the more extreme criminals (rapists, murderers, arsonists, blah) 'walk free', there will be an error rate. I'd sooner let ten all-but-certain criminals walk free than convict even a single innocent person. But I am not most people. Furthermore, there is not a good demonstration that decreasing the error rate (which would require imprisoning less actual criminals whom lack certain evidence, etc.) is beneficial for society as a whole. I mean, there's no studies showing it is any worse off either, but I digress. It's not an argument you can make to most people - they'd rather "keep their family safe from potential murderers" than "not be sentenced to 20 years in prison for a crime they didn't do" because they cannot imagine themselves being sentenced for 20 years for a crime they didn't do but they can imagine a criminal harming their family.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  How many guilty people would you set free to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? You said 10. But probably some of those 10 will be repeat offenders. So how many innocent people will you see murdered in order to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? That's a different question, isn't it? I think this gets to the question of "beneficial for society as a whole". If you stick some plausible values on this (say we're talking about people accused of major crimes, recidivism rate = X%, some weighted values assigned to harm for false imprisonment, being raped, being murdered, etc., and some plausible relationship between false conviction rate and non-conviction of those who are actually guilty), then it should be possible to calculate an optimum rate of convicting people. (Two notes: First, as the rate of false convictions goes up, the rate of non-conviction of the guilty goes down. Second, calculating the optimum is going to depend on the exact values chosen for all those parameters, but it still could be an interesting exercise.)
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >How many guilty people would you set free to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? You said 10. All of them. With the difference in terminology: They are not being "set free" after being "knowingly guilty" but "remaining free" after "uncertain evidence". >But probably some of those 10 will be repeat offenders. So how many innocent people will you see murdered in order to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? That's a different question, isn't it? I'm well aware of the entire argument you are trying to make. Which is why I said the false conviction rate exists. People are willing to trade security from potential repeat offenders at someone else's expense, while never imagining themselves as that someone else. Let me ask you this: Would you serve a lifetime prison sentence for a crime you did not commit? If you are not willing to serve one yourself - you have absolutely no right to ask someone else to do so for your or societies' security. That is my stance on this. People are only okay with this because they never imagine themselves becoming a part of that statistic. Likewise, nobody ever thinks they'll be the one to die in a car accident and even less that they'd be at fault for the accident. But it happens.
    - Shaanie 11y ago
      >Would you serve a lifetime prison sentence for a crime you did not commit? The thing is, if you let a serial killer off the hook because you didn't actually catch him red-handed (though the other evidence is very reliable) then you're killing innocents by inaction. Therefore, we can reframe your question as: "Would you let you and your family get murdered by a repeat offender to ensure that no innocents are imprisoned?" As long as there are prisoners, there will be some amount of innocents imprisoned, simply because it's almost impossible (entire impossible?) to prove that someone did something to a 100% certainty. By setting such insane standards you're killing way more innocents than the amount you'd falsely imprison.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
The general prison population is subject to less post-conviction scrutiny. However, it's subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny; that is to say, the people tried for capital crimes were likely charged under a lot of pressure from the public to charge someone so as to show that Something Is Being Done. People charged with petty drug possession get more vetting before being charged.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The general prison population is subject to less post-conviction scrutiny. However, it's subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny No, its subject to less pre-conviction scrutiny than those charged with murders; at least, from the public defenders I've talked to, PDs assigned to homicides tend to be: (1) the more experienced, skilled attorneys in the PDs office, and (2) have the lowest caseloads, and thus the most time and resources to devote to each case. That means that -- at least as regards those defendants relying on public defenders -- those charged with homicides have more effective representation to subject the prosecution to pre-conviction scrutiny. (For those not relying on public defenders, things may be different, but I suspect even there you'd find that the consequences faced means that more resources of those available to the defendant are devoted to the defense when the charge is murder, thus still subjecting the charges to greater pre-conviction scrutiny.)
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    You know, I included a specific example in my earlier comment of what I was talking about. The general prison population is subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny before it ever gets into court. People aren't charged with crimes by drawing straws from a hat -- but capital crimes are closer to that model than petty crimes are. Your response doesn't address anything in my comment, unless you think people are assigned public defenders before being charged with a crime.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The general prison population is subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny before it ever gets into court. People aren't charged with crimes by drawing straws from a hat -- but capital crimes are closer to that model than petty crimes are. You've asserted, without evidence, some speculation about a motive that could result in that, but neither established that that motive and no counterbalancing force actual exist, nor established that the effect you attribute to that speculated difference exists. In any case, even if that difference in pre-charge scrutiny existed as you describe it, it wouldn't necessarily tip the overall balance of pre-conviction scrutiny in the same direction, since there are important things that happen in criminal prosecutions between charging and sentencing. > Your response doesn't address anything in my comment Except, you know, its argument about the overall balance of pre-conviction scrutiny. > unless you think people are assigned public defenders before being charged with a crime. I think that they are assigned public defenders between being charged and being convicted, which makes the quality of representation potentially quite important to the balance of pre-conviction sentencing.
russell_h 11y ago
Especially because prisoners on death row aren't likely to have accepted a plea bargain. It seems reasonable to expect that plea bargains at least slightly increase the rate of imprisonment of innocent persons.

If there is a 4% error rate with prisoners on death row, I'd imagine that it's even higher in the general prison population (because they're subject to less scrutiny?).

Nadya 11y ago

So long as the majority population deems an error rate to be preferable to letting the more extreme criminals (rapists, murderers, arsonists, blah) 'walk free', there will be an error rate. I'd sooner let ten all-but-certain criminals walk free than convict even a single innocent person. But I am not most people. Furthermore, there is not a good demonstration that decreasing the error rate (which would require imprisoning less actual criminals whom lack certain evidence, etc.) is beneficial for society as a whole. I mean, there's no studies showing it is any worse off either, but I digress. It's not an argument you can make to most people - they'd rather "keep their family safe from potential murderers" than "not be sentenced to 20 years in prison for a crime they didn't do" because they cannot imagine themselves being sentenced for 20 years for a crime they didn't do but they can imagine a criminal harming their family.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
How many guilty people would you set free to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? You said 10. But probably some of those 10 will be repeat offenders. So how many innocent people will you see murdered in order to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? That's a different question, isn't it? I think this gets to the question of "beneficial for society as a whole". If you stick some plausible values on this (say we're talking about people accused of major crimes, recidivism rate = X%, some weighted values assigned to harm for false imprisonment, being raped, being murdered, etc., and some plausible relationship between false conviction rate and non-conviction of those who are actually guilty), then it should be possible to calculate an optimum rate of convicting people. (Two notes: First, as the rate of false convictions goes up, the rate of non-conviction of the guilty goes down. Second, calculating the optimum is going to depend on the exact values chosen for all those parameters, but it still could be an interesting exercise.)
- Nadya 11y ago
  >How many guilty people would you set free to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? You said 10. All of them. With the difference in terminology: They are not being "set free" after being "knowingly guilty" but "remaining free" after "uncertain evidence". >But probably some of those 10 will be repeat offenders. So how many innocent people will you see murdered in order to avoid imprisoning an innocent person? That's a different question, isn't it? I'm well aware of the entire argument you are trying to make. Which is why I said the false conviction rate exists. People are willing to trade security from potential repeat offenders at someone else's expense, while never imagining themselves as that someone else. Let me ask you this: Would you serve a lifetime prison sentence for a crime you did not commit? If you are not willing to serve one yourself - you have absolutely no right to ask someone else to do so for your or societies' security. That is my stance on this. People are only okay with this because they never imagine themselves becoming a part of that statistic. Likewise, nobody ever thinks they'll be the one to die in a car accident and even less that they'd be at fault for the accident. But it happens.
  - Shaanie 11y ago
    >Would you serve a lifetime prison sentence for a crime you did not commit? The thing is, if you let a serial killer off the hook because you didn't actually catch him red-handed (though the other evidence is very reliable) then you're killing innocents by inaction. Therefore, we can reframe your question as: "Would you let you and your family get murdered by a repeat offender to ensure that no innocents are imprisoned?" As long as there are prisoners, there will be some amount of innocents imprisoned, simply because it's almost impossible (entire impossible?) to prove that someone did something to a 100% certainty. By setting such insane standards you're killing way more innocents than the amount you'd falsely imprison.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

The general prison population is subject to less post-conviction scrutiny. However, it's subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny; that is to say, the people tried for capital crimes were likely charged under a lot of pressure from the public to charge someone so as to show that Something Is Being Done. People charged with petty drug possession get more vetting before being charged.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The general prison population is subject to less post-conviction scrutiny. However, it's subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny No, its subject to less pre-conviction scrutiny than those charged with murders; at least, from the public defenders I've talked to, PDs assigned to homicides tend to be: (1) the more experienced, skilled attorneys in the PDs office, and (2) have the lowest caseloads, and thus the most time and resources to devote to each case. That means that -- at least as regards those defendants relying on public defenders -- those charged with homicides have more effective representation to subject the prosecution to pre-conviction scrutiny. (For those not relying on public defenders, things may be different, but I suspect even there you'd find that the consequences faced means that more resources of those available to the defendant are devoted to the defense when the charge is murder, thus still subjecting the charges to greater pre-conviction scrutiny.)
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  You know, I included a specific example in my earlier comment of what I was talking about. The general prison population is subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny before it ever gets into court. People aren't charged with crimes by drawing straws from a hat -- but capital crimes are closer to that model than petty crimes are. Your response doesn't address anything in my comment, unless you think people are assigned public defenders before being charged with a crime.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The general prison population is subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny before it ever gets into court. People aren't charged with crimes by drawing straws from a hat -- but capital crimes are closer to that model than petty crimes are. You've asserted, without evidence, some speculation about a motive that could result in that, but neither established that that motive and no counterbalancing force actual exist, nor established that the effect you attribute to that speculated difference exists. In any case, even if that difference in pre-charge scrutiny existed as you describe it, it wouldn't necessarily tip the overall balance of pre-conviction scrutiny in the same direction, since there are important things that happen in criminal prosecutions between charging and sentencing. > Your response doesn't address anything in my comment Except, you know, its argument about the overall balance of pre-conviction scrutiny. > unless you think people are assigned public defenders before being charged with a crime. I think that they are assigned public defenders between being charged and being convicted, which makes the quality of representation potentially quite important to the balance of pre-conviction sentencing.

russell_h 11y ago

Especially because prisoners on death row aren't likely to have accepted a plea bargain. It seems reasonable to expect that plea bargains at least slightly increase the rate of imprisonment of innocent persons.