5 ms·
It is a very human trait to stick with a choice once made, even if the information that led to that decision turns out to be faulty and the decision itself no l
by Freak_NL 10y ago
It is a very human trait to stick with a choice once made, even if the information that led to that decision turns out to be faulty and the decision itself no longer makes sense. Loss of face, stubbornness, a refusal (subconscious or not) to admit our own fallibility, for any one person there can be plenty of reasons to stick with a faulty decision.
But what always puzzles me in these horrific accounts of abuse by a system is how all the people that are part of it somehow allow for this human trait to seep into the system itself. What goes on in their minds? Is it something to do with a fear of unjustly triggering a series of (costly) events that might exonerate an innocent man? A fear of personal consequences in case they proved guilty after all? Or is it simply always someone else's problem — even if you were the governor himself?
- isubkhankulov 10y agopolitics and media play huge roles. in this particular case though, the author provides zero evidence that the crime wasnt committee. he hints that the guy was mentally not all there or "insane".
- Freak_NL 10y agoThe author himself (not the other guy who was executed in a rush) was offered the Alford Plea, which if I understand correctly means that the justice system does in fact believe he is innocent and doesn't want an innocent death on their hands, but also doesn't want to be held accountable for eighteen years of unjust incarceration — i.e., admit that a grave mistake was made. (Please capitalize your sentences, it makes your contributions easer to read.)
- boomboomsubban 10y agoThough that is kind of how it was used in Echol's case, in general the prosecutors think the person is guilty but don't want to spend money on the proof. Avoiding huge lawsuits was probably why it was used in this situation.
- molloy 10y agoThis is why people still support animal agriculture.