17 ms·

It's crazy to me how often these kind of stories come out of the US. It just shouldn't happen that often that someone is convicted of murder on weak evidence. T

• gambiting 8y ago
  The biggest issue is the whole jury system - I don't understand how being judged by 12 people with no formal law education is considered a working or fair justice system.
  • ritchiea 8y ago
    This makes a lot of sense, what systems are in place in other countries that lead to better outcomes?
  • brobdingnagians 8y ago
    I think the main issue with this case is that the prosecution/court excluded evidence and didn't present the case correctly, even though someone else was _publicly_ admitting guilt in the case and there was plenty of evidence pointing the other way. The jury system could provide relief from this sort of court bias-- _if_ they had the information. So it appears that it is the _system_ that is so frenetic to convict that causes the issue; not the jury [prosecution attorneys tend to think everyone is guilty]. I would agree there is a cultural issue with wanting to convict a lot and firmly believing that everyone convicted by the system must be guilty, but that has very little to do with the jury system. The point of the jury system is to prevent tyranny, especially that experienced in most European countries that had monarchies and oppressive parliaments where angering the government or monarch, being the wrong religion, or having a different ideology would get you convicted very quickly. At least with a jury of your peers you have a chance of getting let off from trumped up charges. Europe _might_ not have the same problems currently, but still nice to have a system that could prevent some egregious things... perhaps including this one.
  • ranko 8y ago
    The jury shouldn't be deciding legal questions - that's for the judge. A jury is supposed to come to their verdict on a consideration of "matters of fact" (a term of art in the law). For example, the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law, and not up for debate by the jury. The jury's role is to decide whether or not the accused committed that particular crime; eg, does the evidence support ("beyond reasonable doubt") the conclusion that they throw the punch that the prosecution allege caused the injury to the accuser?
    • leetcrew 8y ago
      worth pointing out because i don't know if this is also the case in other countries: if the jurors think the law is dumb, they can return a verdict of not guilty even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
      • KallDrexx 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure there is leeway in the appeals process for handling this case if it's absolutely obvious the Jury didn't follow the law.
        • IanPBann 8y ago
          You can appeal against a conviction, but unless new evidence comes to light, a non-guilty verdict closes the case. At least that's my understanding.
          • leephillips 8y ago
            The non-guilty verdict is final, even in the face of new evidence: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Sometimes the government gets around this by inventing a new “offence” for the same crime, often at a different political level; for example, you may be acquitted of murder at the state level, but be charged with a “hate crime” at the federal level for the same act.
  • wolfgke 8y ago
    From my very German perspective, the serious problem seems to be that the principle of "in dubio pro reo" > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_dubio_pro_reo&oldid=859960701 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_dubio_pro_reo&... is not obeyed in the trial. This principle says that a defendant can only be convicted if the evidence is clear that the respective person is guilty. If it is not clear, the defendant is to be let free (or rather: can only be punished for the punishable acts for which the evidence is clear). As you can see in the Wikipedia article, this principle has been very central in German law for centuries.
    • maxerickson 8y ago
      The US ostensibly has this standard ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt"). I think the problem is related to trust of institutions and a learned blindness. Various participants in a trial all assume the others are working to ensure the correct outcome and don't make every personal effort to do the same.
      • candiodari 8y ago
        To be fair, even a cursory examination of how much time and effort they get to put into these cases, they cannot. I remember reading that a judge has, on average, spent 16 minutes or less on convictions for less than 1 year sentence. The state makes it impossible for people to do that, even if they were so inclined in the first place. And, of course, they have to consider that they go against part of their own organization to make this happen (meaning some of your colleagues will want a conviction and you preventing them from getting that will have costs).
  • coldtea 8y ago
    The people who designed the jury system had all the formal law education you ask for. The idea is that such decisions are not mere technical matters, and the law is not for some "supposedly" impartial technocrats to impose their opinion on, but to reflect what society thinks. After all it's not some god given or mathematically derived laws that need to be applied, the law is the will of the sovereign people (with some intermediaries as they can't all just draft them together). Besides the jury system works just fine in other countries. It's the: - systemic racism, - bad incentives for DAs (and political careers associated with being one), - strict adherence to the letter of the law when the spirit is clearly elsewhere (e.g. judges not freeing people for some technical BS despite full evidence that clears them) - privatization of the prison system and large interests - Old Testament-style vengefulness (e.g. death penalty? In 2018? Third world prison conditions? Long term torture-level isolation?) that breaks down the US justice system.
  • pjc50 8y ago
    Other countries have juries. America is I think unique in having elected prosecutors, who have major incentives to commit whatever miscarriages of justice they think will help them get (re-)elected.
    • candiodari 8y ago
      Actually, outside of the US, not many countries have juries for most crimes. In most of Western Europe, juries are only possible for murder (or worse). For everything else, a judge decides without any recourse for the population. There, you do not have the right to a jury trial at all.
  • IIAOPSW 8y ago
    Anything other than random citizens would necessitate a full time profession of juror and would thus render members of this profession employees of the state in some capacity. This violates the idea of an independent judiciary. Furthermore a jury of your peers is at least as good as the society around it. A jury of self selecting professionals is almost certainly worse. How many people would choose to join the jury profession so they can enact their own personal bullying by voting guilty on everyone? How many people become small town cops because they like having a gun and barking orders? Furthermore any bias in a juror gets averaged over 12 and affects at most one trial. Furthermore prosecution and defense get to cross examine and dismiss jurors as part of the selection process. If you want a generally well educated jury you can get one. Ask your trial lawyer which jury is right for you! Furthermore it only takes one of the 12 to stop a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore in the US everyone is at least somewhat indoctrinated with an understanding of what a jury is and a respect for executing jury duty faithfully. You have a pretty good shot of getting at least one person on the jury that won't vote guilty instantly so they can still make the baseball game latter that day. Finally, a jury doesn't need law education. Their job is to judge the facts. They are informed of the definitions of the crime, and the evidence, and must reach a verdict of yes he did this or no he did not. Upon rendering a guilty verdict, the actual law part of the law is executed by the judge.
    • Aaargh20318 8y ago
      > Anything other than random citizens would necessitate a full time profession of juror and would thus render members of this profession employees of the state in some capacity. Why have jurors at all ? Over here in the Netherlands people are judged by ... judges (what's in a name).
      • cimmanom 8y ago
        Because at the time the US split from England, there were myriad concerns about judges being influenced by authorities to convict innocent people for political (or personal) reasons.
        • 8y ago
  • Amezarak 8y ago
    Not only are you almost always free to waive your right to a jury trial and have a bench trial before a judge instead, the state strongly encourages you to do so, since jury trials are expensive and time consuming. I would not be surprised if they also had a lower conviction rate.
  • DoreenMichele 8y ago
    You seem to assume all jurors are high school dropouts or something. They can come from all kinds of backgrounds and this means that specific jurors can be quite knowledgeable. The idea is a "jury of your peers." Part of the point of this set-up is so that The Haves are not the only ones in positions to make life-altering decisions about people's lives. Jury Nullification is a thing. There is some degree to which jurors, knowledgeable about how the system has consistently and intentionally screwed over "their people," decide to not go along with railroading yet another person of the wrong color or whatever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification Any time a government is overthrown, one of the first things that happens is they release all the prisoners on the assumption that, regardless of what their conviction is for, these are actually political prisoners. This is a not unreasonable conclusion in most cases.
  • Spooky23 8y ago
    Have you served on a jury? Frankly it gave me a good appreciation for the process and how well it actually works. The “problem” is that few cases go to trial, and many of those lack competent counsel. The other thing to keep in mind is that the law itself and rules of procedure creates many of the social issues that come up in these discussions. Jurors have the benefit of handicap of weighing evidence presented to them against statute as interpreted by a judge.
  • TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Because we, the people, are the law. And we are free to judge one another as we ought like to be judged. And this tends to be a very good thing. If a law is so absurd as to require a law degree to begin to be able to grasp it, then it's not one anybody should ever be prosecuted for not abiding. A related issue is jury nullification [1]. Juries cannot be forced to convict, regardless of the weight of evidence against an individual. This gives juries the ability, whether defacto or dejure, to determine whether or not a law is just. So for instance in the early 18th century New York passed a law making it a crime to criticize public officials. But with juries being unwilling to hold up the law, it had no effect. In more recent times nullification has been invoked, even if not by name, countless times in statutory rape, drug charges, etc. As wiki mentions, the recent sharp rise in hung juries (going from ~5% to 20% in recent years) has also been seen as possible evidence of a rise in jurors considering the validity or fairness of the laws they're being asked to convict others under. Trial by jury enables a nation to express its own value system, regardless of whether or not those who happen be on top agree. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit...
• boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >It just shouldn't happen that often that someone is convicted of murder on weak evidence. And the prosecution withholding exonerating evidence to get a conviction should never happen, or if it does they should face some punishment. In many states, that is essentially murder.
  • amarant 8y ago
    how to get away with murder: get the state to do it for you!
    • ben_w 8y ago
      Reminds me of the ending of (the TV adaptation of) Sherlock Holmes, the adventure of the Norwood builder.
  • jhowell 8y ago
    In California, the Sherif is often the coroner and can issue or revise the medical examiner's cause of death. This represents a conflict of interest. The governor has decided to leave these matters to county governments.
  • freerobby 8y ago
    Fun fact: in California and Idaho, it is a capital crime to commit perjury that results in a wrongful execution. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty
    • BuildTheRobots 8y ago
      Is perjury actively lying or also withholding exonerating evidence? Rather than just if it results in execution, you'd think perjury resulting in jail time should mean the person lying should face the same jail term as the defendant.
    • boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Perjury seems to be a separate crime from withholding evidence, somehow I doubt any prosecutor would ever be found guilty in this situation.
• washadjeffmad 8y ago
  We have no justice system, but we do have a Department of Justice and a legal system. Our problem is how federated the authorities of individual districts are within each state. There can't be a sweeping national reform that fixes everything, because most of this comes down to district-local decisions in each state. Some people believe the POTUS holds all the power, but your locally elected DA is a lot more likely to have a direct impact on your life than anyone in DC.
  • pc86 8y ago
    Things discussed at my borough's (pop. ~1800) council meeting this past Monday: - Evicting tenants because their landlord can't follow the law (didn't do required inspections, obtain required licenses, etc) - Existing arrest warrants for said landlord - New liens against properties - Tax increases in the neighborhood of $80-300/yr, which is considerable when the median income is roughly $2250/mo gross. These are councilors that are elected in unopposed races the vast majority of the time, and when they are opposed the margin may only be a dozen votes. Because they're in off years you're looking at maybe 8-10% total turnout (~45 or so per voting district), and there may only be 25 or 30 total votes in even opposed elections. For folks given the power to evict, halt property sales, etc. I'd argue the power given per vote require is on par with state executives and higher than a freshman member of Congress.
    • specialist 8y ago
      I didn't grasp the importance of local races until I became involved. Short of everyone running for office (at least once), I wish there was a way to communicate this truth to the average voters.
      • derefr 8y ago
        I'm still unclear on why there hasn't been a mass movement that tells people who are interested in affecting political change, but who live in enclaves where everyone already shares their political views, to instead move to a city/town where their views are radical, and then run for city council there, giving like-minded but disenfranchised voters of that district someone to vote for.
• mikeash 8y ago
  I can’t help but notice that the wrongly convicted often have skin that absorbs more light than average.
  • cheeko1234 8y ago
    What?
    • _Schizotypy 8y ago
      Bright colors reflect light, dark colors absorb it
    • thecatspaw 8y ago
      "they are black"
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• dawnerd 8y ago
  The article even kinda touches on their fallback excuse “he was an up and coming drug dealer”. So the prosecutors use that to say well, he was a bad person anyways so no harm done! It’s all just so stupid.
  • gph 8y ago
    I think it's a bit more nuanced then that. If you dig into this case a bit it seems pretty likely that this Scott guy "worked" for Dixon in some capacity and even if Dixon didn't pull the trigger he provided the weapon and was at the scene of the crime when it happened. I think the most likely explanation is that this killing was directly related to him being a drug dealer and him having one of his gang members kill someone else. Like doesn't it seem a bit odd that this other guy was so willing to take the fall? Sounds like a lackey trying to protect his boss. Just saying, I don't think that was just an excuse. I think they had good reason to believe this guy was a bit of a low level crime boss/gang leader and they decided it'd be better to put him away even if he didn't technically pull the trigger. Yea it's an abuse of the justice system in a lot of ways and I don't condone it, but I don't think it's as easy as saying the DA just wanted to randomly pin the murder on someone else.
• euroclydon 8y ago
  > The number of prisoners per capita seems to indicate that it's not just anecdotes. Well, the sheer number of prisoners, and whether or not they are guilty are two totally separate issues. After all, someone committed the murder in this case, so you need to put that person in prison.
  • crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
    Only if you wish to persist a violent system aiming to wreck lives. We could instead try to help everyone involved heal from the event(s) and initiate processes to uncover systemic issues leading to them. I'd rather the latter.
    • euroclydon 8y ago
      I'm just pointing out that wrongful convictions are a separate issue from the practices and pervasiveness of imprisonment.
    • malvosenior 8y ago
      I think this makes sense for a lot of crimes, but not murder. If you take someone's life, you should be prepared to spend a long time in prison. That's a reasonable punishment for the crime.
      • ben_w 8y ago
        This relates to a fundamental question of what the criminal justice system is for: Punishment, deterrent, undoing wrongs, etc. I predict that I’m in the minority in believing what I’m about to say: In the unlikely event that it turned out the best way of minimising homicide was to promise every single convict £1 million and a 12 hour episode television show in their name, if that actually minimised homicide, I’d be in favour of that response to it. I will of course freely admit that the reason I can say something so shocking is because I don’t know anyone who’s been murdered. I care about minimising the aggregate rate of all homicide, not punishment for it’s own sake.
• rayiner 8y ago
  There are a lot of problems with the U.S. justice system, but these articles paint a misleading picture. The article makes it seem like Dixon was just "at a nearby shop buying beer when the gunshots rang out." The police couldn't find the real shooter, so they just grabbed the nearest black guy and convicted him, right? If you read the article further though, something seems off. > Mr Dixon said multiple witnesses could have testified he did not fire the gun. That's an odd formulation. > "I grabbed the gun," Scott, now 46, told the courtroom in Erie County, New York. Grabbed it from who? The article never really explains it, but what actually happened is that Dixon and the real shooter, Scott, were involved in drug dealing. Dixon gave Scott the murder weapon, a semi-automatic Tec-9, and drove with him to the scene of the altercation: http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24736866/valentino-dixon-drew-golf-courses-imprisoned-released-jail http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24736866/valentino-dixon... > Scott said he had gotten the gun, a Tec-9 semi-automatic, from Dixon and the two men had driven together to the crowded corner where the fighting broke out. Scott was given a sentence of 8⅓ to 25 years in prison, concurrent with his current term. This case is a lot more subtle than it seems: it was about figuring out who was the killer, the guy whose gun it was, or the alleged "bodyguard" (Scott). Now, this is not to excuse the Brady violation or the other flaws in the prosecution. It's a travesty that Dixon was convicted based on that case. But from my first hand experience with the U.S. justice system, it's not random and capricious. If you see a story that makes it seem random and capricious, digging into it will almost always reveal that there was something more to it than the press releases let on. For example, a few years ago I got an ACLU or Innocence Project email about a "kid" who was convicted for murder because he just "happened to be at the crime scene." In reality, a bunch of 16-17 year old young men robbed a pizza delivery driver, and shot him dead right in front of his wife and kid who were in the back seat. The convicted man "happened to be at the crime scene" in the sense that he was part of the group, but denied being the one that pulled the trigger. As a matter of legal technicality, that conviction was probably wrongful--you need evidence that the accused pulled the trigger, otherwise you just have accomplice liability. But it's a far cry from the press release implying that some jury just pinned the crime on a random kid who happened to be near by! Also note two other things: 1) Most prosecutions and guilty please are supported by a mountain of evidence. Sometimes you'll look at the record and think "this shouldn't be a crime" (selling Ambien to yuppies) but at the same time you'll see that the guy tried to sell it directly to a cop or something where guilt was similarly unambiguous. 2) For every exoneration, U.S. civil liberties organizations turn away many cases where the prisoner who professes innocence is actually guilty. At the end of the day, the US has 30-40,000 murders per year. Even if the rate of error is 1%, that’s hundreds of wrongful convictions each year. There are ways to improve, clearly, such as holding prosecutors accountable for Brady violations, getting rid of elected prosecutors, and combining prosecutors and public defenders’ offices. But if the current system is “not functioning” then I don’t think you can achieve a “functioning” system under that rubric. There isn’t a revolutionary amount improvement to be gained.
• crescentfresh 8y ago
  I recently heard a podcast - forgive me I cannot recall the name atm - about Jeffrey Pyne and his conviction for the absolutely horrific murder of his mother Ruth. The prosecutions case was 100% circumstantial; it consisted entirely of "here's what we think happened... therefore this man is a murderer". In my naivety I didn't think conviction based on that kind of "evidence" was allowed in the US justice system. At one point when the prosecution didn't think the charge of 1st degree murder would stick they added a charge of 2nd degree murder. In the end the jury found him guilty of the latter.
  • rayiner 8y ago
    Circumstantial evidence is a valid basis for conviction. You’re leaving out a few key details: http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/12/did-jeffrey-pyne-murder-his-mother.html?m=1 http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/12/did-jeffrey-p... 1) Jeffrey had motive. His mother had been abusing him for years. 2) Jeffrey was the last person to see his mother alive. The crime scene evidence also pointed to an “insider” who would’ve felt comfortable sticking around to clean up the crime scene (blood was found in the sink, there was no blood in exit paths). 3) Jeffrey had blisters on his hands consistent with weilding a bludgeoning weapon. 4) Jeffrey’s alibi was that he had been planting flowers at his teacher’s house. But the teacher testified that he had done that four days before. The second degree murder charge was proper. If the jury believed he killed his mothef because of the abuse, first degree murder might not stick. Second degree, “heat of the moment/emotional disturbance” murder would be the correct charge.
    • lightyrs 8y ago
      I agree that the second degree charge was proper but adding it in after the jury had heard the entire case seems unethical.
      • derefr 8y ago
        Honestly, it seems to me that—given a hypothetical ideal jury with encyclopedic knowledge of the criminal code—it doesn't even make sense to have a trial that is "about" a particular crime. Rather, wouldn't it make more sense (again, given a jury that knows what the requirements are for every crime in the book) for the trial to just present the evidence in the case to the jury, and then the jury to come back with a list of zero or more crimes that they've decided that the defendant has committed? It seems to me that the only reason we do things any other way, is that juries don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the criminal code, and so you have to teach them about what the requirements are for guilt in the particular case. Given that the court system doesn't like jury nullification, and wants juries to be deciding solely on whether the facts presented to them match the legal requirements for the definition of a particular crime—why would it matter whether they know which crime they'll be asked to evaluate the facts against, before they know the facts? They can learn the facts first, or the law first. Either way, the last step is just matching one to the other. (In the Supreme Court's opinion, at least.)
• caymanjim 8y ago
  I agree that it's a big problem, and there were some egregious errors by both the prosecution and defense in this case, most notably that someone had been confessing to it for years to no avail. That said, Dixon didn't make for a very sympathetic defendant; he brought the gun used in the murder to the scene, he was a known drug dealer, he was involved in a dispute with the victim, etc. It's not hard to see how he got convicted. He very likely would have been convicted of accessory to murder or other felonies. Our justice system has major problems, and it's good that this wrong has been partially righted, but this isn't a case that I'd hold up as a prime example of injustice.
  • tyrust 8y ago
    A man lost 27 years of his life for something he didn't do. Just because he wasn't an upstanding citizen doesn't make that any more right. edit: To expand, if he were given a proper sentence for the things he actually did, he would have had a chance to reform and go on with his life. Being denied that is injustice.
    • mcguire 8y ago
      "Judge Susan Eagan let stand a count of criminal possession of a weapon against Dixon, and its 5- to 15-year sentence, which she said he had satisfied." (http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24736866/valentino-dixon-drew-golf-courses-imprisoned-released-jail http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24736866/valentino-dixon...)
      • tyrust 8y ago
        What's your point? Supposing that he received the maximum sentence for that, he still lost 12 (!) more years than he was due. I don't think that changes much.
        • bostonpete 8y ago
          Well, apparently he gave the killer (his "body guard") the weapon and drove him to the scene of the crime. Yes, it sounds like there was some bad behavior on the part of the prosecutor, but it's not clear to me that someone who drove the murderer to the scene and gave them the weapon to kill someone wouldn't culpable in the murder as well.
• andrewla 8y ago
  Knowing something of some of these cases and things like the Innocence Project, it is actually much more frightening that you don't hear these stories coming out of other countries. Wikipedia has a page on this [1], and picking France, there are six examples listed, including Joan of Arc and the Dreyfus affair. I find it almost inconceivable that outside of those six cases there have not been any other wrongful convictions. The most generous interpretation is that the French penal system is more humane than the US, and sentences shorter, so that wrongful convictions don't necessarily destroy lives, and thus overturning convictions is not a priority either for activist groups, politicians, or law enforcement. On the other extreme is the idea that challenging verdicts and the appeals process for introducing new exculpatory evidence after convictions is either too difficult or inaccessible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice...
  • _jal 8y ago
    > The most generous interpretation is that the French penal system is more humane than the US That is indeed generous. French prisons are notoriously awful. A bit of a catalogue of official condemnations is available at the Wikipedia page[1], but more telling are the many, many anecdotes of people who have done time in them. Of course nasty prisons doesn't mean that the administration of the courts isn't impeccable, and I am hardly an expert, but I rather doubt it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_conditions_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_conditions_in_France
  • fastball 8y ago
    It's similar to how racism is presented. Many people talk about how "racist" the US is, and of course there is still a lot of racism in the US. But there is racism everywhere. I've lived in several countries, including Switzerland. I've never heard anyone except people that have lived in CH talk about how racist it is (very). The difference, I think, is that the US is the country most likely to admit fault when they are racist. Americans themselves will say "yes, we're racist", while Swiss, Germans, Brits, etc. all seem to still be in that denial stage. I think things like Brexit are starting to get people to think long and hard about their actual views on race / immigration. America just got to the party first.