4 ms·

Not quibbling with the details, but if i was innocent and imprisoned for 30 years, > confessed to the rape and apologized for it during his parole hearings, wh

by jfoutz 10y ago

Not quibbling with the details, but if i was innocent and imprisoned for 30 years, > confessed to the rape and apologized for it during his parole hearings, which were denied. He was also a very problematic prisoner who was constantly getting into violent altercations with other prisoners and guards. I'd probably try all of those things over the years. Again, the guy may well be a monster. But those points shouldn't really weigh on the courts decision. How long can an innocent person live in Kafka world before going at least a little crazy?

gravypod 10y ago
In our legal system a confession means next to nothing. You need a multitude of sources to draw from to convict
- nilkn 10y ago
  How are stories like that of Brendan Dassey consistent with this statement?
  - jwatte 10y ago
    Because our justice system is inconsistent and very far from perfect. But probably better than nothing, or vigilante justice. Probably. Want to fix this? Vote for higher taxes to help fund both public defenders (at 10x or more the current level) and social services (that keep people out of trouble in the first place.)
- bmuon 10y ago
  Not true. Just go listen to the Wrongful Conviction podcast: http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-with-jason-flom/ http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-wi.... People have been convicted of crimes because they confessed, even when the hard evidence points to the contrary.
- pmarreck 10y ago
  Or just faulty eyewitness testimony. http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentif...
pmarreck 10y ago
If I kidnap you and then extend your kidnapping time because of your belligerent misbehaving and escape attempts, that would seem completely ridiculous, right? It's like casebook circular reasoning.... And yet, when wrongfully imprisoned, you can hold someone back from justice because of their behavior while trying to survive in a hostile prison environment? WTF?
- parthdesai 10y ago
  Prisons are motivated to keep more prisoners in as they are privately owned. Finding out that prisons in US are privately pwned was a WTTTFF moment for me.
  - et1337 10y ago
    Only about 10 percent of US prisons are privately owned.
dogma1138 10y ago
You actually have to admit guilt and ask forgiveness to be eligible for parole in most place; which is a pretty darn idiotic thing to do. But then again it's hard to release some one that claim they didn't do anything when you have to presume guilt to begin with.
- smsm42 10y ago
  Why is it idiotic? If someone committed a crime, wouldn't him admitting it's wrong a basic requirement for deciding he has reformed?
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    It's not idiotic. I think there's a little more nuance. When someone is convicted, they're done. The law has spoken. That, in and of itself is fairly reasonable. Especially before all this fancy technology we have now. But, consider, when DNA evidence appeared as a viable technology, 5% of death row inmates were set free. The most difficult cases, where you want the system to work perfectly - no one wants to execute an innocent person - failed 1 in 20 times. Something like 270 people were set free. Millions are spent on both sides of these cases, with round after round of appeals. So, when you get down to lesser crimes, say assault and battery, I'd bet a good fraction of the people in prison really are innocent. In the best case 5% are innocent. There's no real way to treat the unknown innocents differently than the actual criminals. That's just how the world is. Perhaps we should offer some paths to redemption. Not that i have any specific love for muggers, it's more that a good fraction of "muggers in the eyes of the law" aren't actually muggers. Anyone convicted now days is pretty much fucked. I can think of a few notable exceptions, but unless you're some sort of military officer with national news attention, you are pretty much done. We really only know that at it's absolute best best, death row cases, the legal system's false positive rate is 5%. I find that number terrifying.

by jfoutz 10y ago

gravypod 10y ago

In our legal system a confession means next to nothing. You need a multitude of sources to draw from to convict

nilkn 10y ago
How are stories like that of Brendan Dassey consistent with this statement?
- jwatte 10y ago
  Because our justice system is inconsistent and very far from perfect. But probably better than nothing, or vigilante justice. Probably. Want to fix this? Vote for higher taxes to help fund both public defenders (at 10x or more the current level) and social services (that keep people out of trouble in the first place.)
bmuon 10y ago
Not true. Just go listen to the Wrongful Conviction podcast: http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-with-jason-flom/ http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-wi.... People have been convicted of crimes because they confessed, even when the hard evidence points to the contrary.
pmarreck 10y ago
Or just faulty eyewitness testimony. http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentif...

pmarreck 10y ago

If I kidnap you and then extend your kidnapping time because of your belligerent misbehaving and escape attempts, that would seem completely ridiculous, right? It's like casebook circular reasoning.... And yet, when wrongfully imprisoned, you can hold someone back from justice because of their behavior while trying to survive in a hostile prison environment? WTF?

parthdesai 10y ago
Prisons are motivated to keep more prisoners in as they are privately owned. Finding out that prisons in US are privately pwned was a WTTTFF moment for me.
- et1337 10y ago
  Only about 10 percent of US prisons are privately owned.

dogma1138 10y ago

You actually have to admit guilt and ask forgiveness to be eligible for parole in most place; which is a pretty darn idiotic thing to do. But then again it's hard to release some one that claim they didn't do anything when you have to presume guilt to begin with.

smsm42 10y ago
Why is it idiotic? If someone committed a crime, wouldn't him admitting it's wrong a basic requirement for deciding he has reformed?
- jfoutz 10y ago
  It's not idiotic. I think there's a little more nuance. When someone is convicted, they're done. The law has spoken. That, in and of itself is fairly reasonable. Especially before all this fancy technology we have now. But, consider, when DNA evidence appeared as a viable technology, 5% of death row inmates were set free. The most difficult cases, where you want the system to work perfectly - no one wants to execute an innocent person - failed 1 in 20 times. Something like 270 people were set free. Millions are spent on both sides of these cases, with round after round of appeals. So, when you get down to lesser crimes, say assault and battery, I'd bet a good fraction of the people in prison really are innocent. In the best case 5% are innocent. There's no real way to treat the unknown innocents differently than the actual criminals. That's just how the world is. Perhaps we should offer some paths to redemption. Not that i have any specific love for muggers, it's more that a good fraction of "muggers in the eyes of the law" aren't actually muggers. Anyone convicted now days is pretty much fucked. I can think of a few notable exceptions, but unless you're some sort of military officer with national news attention, you are pretty much done. We really only know that at it's absolute best best, death row cases, the legal system's false positive rate is 5%. I find that number terrifying.