5 ms·

Standing by Their Convictions

50 points by danso 8y ago

maxxxxx 8y ago
Cases like this show what's wrong with the US justice system. There is no internal quality control so prosecutors can try to hold on to their errors and it's really hard to get out of jail even if it's totally obvious that the person is innocent. I have now read about several cases where the person was obviously innocent but prosecution kept fighting a release tooth and nails delaying a release for years. In addition they often force a plea deal so the person can't even get compensation. In my (medical) company we have a quality department that's outside the normal management hierarchy so they can override any decisions made and stop a product release. The US really needs an institution who is motivated to make sure that justice system works correctly and has the power and budget to do so.
- salawat 8y ago
  Federallythis is the role played by the Office of the Inspector General, though they play more of an "inspect and raise awareness" role rather than the typical "pulling of the Andon" quality assurance role. I do think government may be benefited by an adversarial Quality Management process, but it shouldn't be reliant purely on inspection after the fact. It should have an involvement st all levels of the business of doing what government does if the maximum payoff via Quality management is to be achieved.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  The relevant stakeholders are elected, or nominated or hired by elected officials. And as already pointed out in a sibling answer, there kind of is such an office already in some sense. The core of the problem is that if you try to introduce an extra layer of bureaucratic oversight, one might expect an outcry over it being technocratic or wasteful. So it's unfortunately not simple. (However much your viewpoint makes sense IMHO.)
acjohnson55 8y ago
What we call "justice" in the US is really just ritual sacrifice to purge the community of the bad juju created when a crime happens. The more aspirational the victim, the worse the juju. Traditionally, the person sacrificed should have plausibly committed the crime. But this is not strictly necessary, especially if they are not considered aspirational. The worst thing that can happen is to have the sacrifice thwarted. This multiplies the juju. But it sometimes happens due to technicalities, like innocence.
- 1996 8y ago
  I love the analysis because yes, US justice looks a lot like tribal rituals
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  "...But it sometimes happens due to technicalities, like innocence..." Ouch. You play rough. But I do agree that there are certain buttons you can push in the psyche of the average American that short-circuit our critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, yes, saying, "The black guy did it!", is definitely one of those buttons.
- praptak 8y ago
  "US is a third world country with a thin first world layer at the top." This is a comment I read on HN a while ago. HN seems like a filter for stories that support this view.
  - orcdork 8y ago
    When you devalue the issues that people actually living in third word countries face, you can make your own privilege sound a bit less like one.
bilbo0s 8y ago
As horrible as this sounds to say, I think there are a lot of political type people at the local, state and federal level who get a lot of votes by locking up certain demographics of males. I mean those votes translate into money, power, even both a lot of times. So I don't see this sort of thing stopping anytime soon. The incentive to participate and go along with this activity is just too large in our system. It's kind of a pipe dream to think that actual guilt should be the deciding factor in these things when there is such a large payout for what I call electioneering convictions. Obviously electioneering is going to become the deciding factor.
- mathattack 8y ago
  It’s worse. “Tough on crime” also means “Get votes by enforcing the death penalty.” We know that human memory is fallible yet we still enforce a punishment that we can’t back out of.
  - duxup 8y ago
    In my view tough on crime just means mandatory sentences in most cases, leaving judges out of that part of the process.
    - watwut 8y ago
      And giving all power to prosecutors moving actual justice process to pre-trial guilt-plea negotiations about charges and sentences.
      - duxup 8y ago
        Yeah judges for all their faults should be in a position to weigh the situation.
nerdponx 8y ago
Lisa Black, the state police DNA analyst who tested the shooter’s hat, wasn’t called to testify. Instead, the two sides presented a stipulation, outlining what they agreed Black would have said. The stipulation said nothing of how Black had excluded Cooper as the source of the DNA found on the hat’s sweatband. Instead, it said: “The expert opinion of Lisa Black is that neither Keith D. Cooper nor any other person can be eliminated as having possibly worn the hat.” That's completely ridiculous. Was Smeeton being bribed?
- duxup 8y ago
  On top of that question, a judge was ok with that? There has to be a line where the testimony is so empty (even if both sides agree to it) that it could only be misinterpreted an would be better left just .... out.

50 points by danso 8y ago

Cases like this show what's wrong with the US justice system. There is no internal quality control so prosecutors can try to hold on to their errors and it's really hard to get out of jail even if it's totally obvious that the person is innocent. I have now read about several cases where the person was obviously innocent but prosecution kept fighting a release tooth and nails delaying a release for years. In addition they often force a plea deal so the person can't even get compensation. In my (medical) company we have a quality department that's outside the normal management hierarchy so they can override any decisions made and stop a product release. The US really needs an institution who is motivated to make sure that justice system works correctly and has the power and budget to do so.

salawat 8y ago
Federallythis is the role played by the Office of the Inspector General, though they play more of an "inspect and raise awareness" role rather than the typical "pulling of the Andon" quality assurance role. I do think government may be benefited by an adversarial Quality Management process, but it shouldn't be reliant purely on inspection after the fact. It should have an involvement st all levels of the business of doing what government does if the maximum payoff via Quality management is to be achieved.
ddebernardy 8y ago
The relevant stakeholders are elected, or nominated or hired by elected officials. And as already pointed out in a sibling answer, there kind of is such an office already in some sense. The core of the problem is that if you try to introduce an extra layer of bureaucratic oversight, one might expect an outcry over it being technocratic or wasteful. So it's unfortunately not simple. (However much your viewpoint makes sense IMHO.)

acjohnson55 8y ago

What we call "justice" in the US is really just ritual sacrifice to purge the community of the bad juju created when a crime happens. The more aspirational the victim, the worse the juju. Traditionally, the person sacrificed should have plausibly committed the crime. But this is not strictly necessary, especially if they are not considered aspirational. The worst thing that can happen is to have the sacrifice thwarted. This multiplies the juju. But it sometimes happens due to technicalities, like innocence.

1996 8y ago
I love the analysis because yes, US justice looks a lot like tribal rituals
bilbo0s 8y ago
"...But it sometimes happens due to technicalities, like innocence..." Ouch. You play rough. But I do agree that there are certain buttons you can push in the psyche of the average American that short-circuit our critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, yes, saying, "The black guy did it!", is definitely one of those buttons.
praptak 8y ago
"US is a third world country with a thin first world layer at the top." This is a comment I read on HN a while ago. HN seems like a filter for stories that support this view.
- orcdork 8y ago
  When you devalue the issues that people actually living in third word countries face, you can make your own privilege sound a bit less like one.

bilbo0s 8y ago

As horrible as this sounds to say, I think there are a lot of political type people at the local, state and federal level who get a lot of votes by locking up certain demographics of males. I mean those votes translate into money, power, even both a lot of times. So I don't see this sort of thing stopping anytime soon. The incentive to participate and go along with this activity is just too large in our system. It's kind of a pipe dream to think that actual guilt should be the deciding factor in these things when there is such a large payout for what I call electioneering convictions. Obviously electioneering is going to become the deciding factor.

mathattack 8y ago
It’s worse. “Tough on crime” also means “Get votes by enforcing the death penalty.” We know that human memory is fallible yet we still enforce a punishment that we can’t back out of.
- duxup 8y ago
  In my view tough on crime just means mandatory sentences in most cases, leaving judges out of that part of the process.
  - watwut 8y ago
    And giving all power to prosecutors moving actual justice process to pre-trial guilt-plea negotiations about charges and sentences.
    - duxup 8y ago
      Yeah judges for all their faults should be in a position to weigh the situation.

nerdponx 8y ago

Lisa Black, the state police DNA analyst who tested the shooter’s hat, wasn’t called to testify. Instead, the two sides presented a stipulation, outlining what they agreed Black would have said. The stipulation said nothing of how Black had excluded Cooper as the source of the DNA found on the hat’s sweatband. Instead, it said: “The expert opinion of Lisa Black is that neither Keith D. Cooper nor any other person can be eliminated as having possibly worn the hat.” That's completely ridiculous. Was Smeeton being bribed?

duxup 8y ago
On top of that question, a judge was ok with that? There has to be a line where the testimony is so empty (even if both sides agree to it) that it could only be misinterpreted an would be better left just .... out.