5 ms·

The various Innocence Projects across the US are full of absolute heroes. The number of innocent people currently serving time in US jails is tragic and scary.

The various Innocence Projects across the US are full of absolute heroes. The number of innocent people currently serving time in US jails is tragic and scary. Prosecutors and judges should be held more accountable for malpractice. This man lost his life when the facts were in his favor. Someone should be punished for this injustice. Even worse, lots of states won't even compensate the wrongly convicted for taking their lives from them.

stcredzero 8y ago
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation This principle isn't just a matter of protecting the innocent. It's about protecting democracy. The power of the judiciary is potent, and millennia of history can show us how corrupt governments can abuse false accusations to oppress the populace. A society that gives up due process and the presumption of innocence is one that is giving the keys over to oppressors.
- white-flame 8y ago
  Then consider that many convicted felons also lose the right to vote.
spamizbad 8y ago
One of the many problematic things about criminal justice in the United States is this: Many prosecutors and police officers feel that, even if you weren't guilty of this crime, you were probably guilty of something, the law just "caught up with you." so if a plausible case can be made against you they'll do it. And it's important to understand this isn't merely a cynical view held by these people: it's a strongly held conviction. Had Mr. Dixon been thoroughly exonerated at his original hearing, I can assure you both the arresting officer and prosecutor involved would be absolutely furious that he "got away with it" Attempts to curtail this behavior are met with endless concern-trolling and belly-aching from DA and police departments, claiming it lets criminals roam free because they use these laws (civil liberties) to "cheat the system". They are gas-lighting you, and don't want you to ask: how are a bunch of impoverished teens, who never completed high school, and likely never left a 6 block radius of where they grew up, somehow out-maneuvering politically powerful DAs with well-educated prosecutors backed up by well-funded militarized police departments? The constitution is powerful, but it's not that powerful.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > Many prosecutors and police officers feel that, even if you weren't guilty of this crime, you were probably guilty of something You are right, the prosecutors feel that way. From the article: But despite Mr Dixon's exoneration, prosecutors say he did provide the murder weapon, which they described as a machine gun. They also said he was an "up-and-coming drug dealer" in Buffalo at the time of his arrest. "Mr Dixon is innocent of the shooting and of the murder for what he was found guilty of, but Mr Dixon brought the gun to the fight," said the district attorney.
  - totalZero 8y ago
    You're taking the quote out of context. Dixon's conviction on the fourth charge, criminal possession of the murder weapon, was not overturned, and the DA is stating the reason for that. Dixon was, in fact, guilty of something. Not only that, but Dixon's status as a drug dealer is a materially relevant fact of the relationship between himself and Scott, who in fact committed the murder. (See quote below). This DA has been in the job for less than a year and he is the person who ordered the review. He has pointed out that there was no physical evidence of any kind used in the trial to convict Dixon, among other statements he has made in support of overturning the murder conviction. From https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-inmate-valentino-dixon-cleared-1991-murder-golf-drawings/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-inmate-valentino-dixon... "There was a fight. Shots were fired. I grabbed the gun from under the bench, switched it to automatic, all the bullets shot out. Unfortunately, Torriano ended up dying," Lamarr Scott, who has been in prison for 25 years for an unrelated attempted murder, told the court. "I dropped the gun and ran and it was over and done with." 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 8 1/3 to 25 years in prison, concurrent with his current term. 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. "You are eligible for release today," the judge said, igniting applause and shouts from courtroom supporters. "Mr. Dixon is not an innocent man. Don't be misguided in that at all," Erie County District Attorney John Flynn told reporters after the hearing. He described Dixon as "an up-and-coming drug dealer in the city of Buffalo" at the time of the shooting and said Scott was Dixon's bodyguard. "Mr. Dixon is innocent of the shooting and of the murder for what he was found guilty of," he said, "but Mr. Dixon brought the gun to the fight. It was Mr. Dixon's gun."
pastor_elm 8y ago
should be considered 'cruel and unusual' on an innocent man in light of the circumstances. Unfortunately, the founders didn't specifically spell out how to handle a 21th century for-profit prison system in the Constitution, so no go with 'Originalist' judges.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 8y ago
  >Unfortunately, the founders didn't specifically spell out how to handle a 21th century for-profit prison system in the Constitution, so no go with 'Originalist' judges. The founding fathers would not have granted the inmate in question Constitutional rights to begin with... so the question is moot. The premise of "originalist" judges in the modern day is more a political fantasy than fact, and would be unacceptable in modern society if taken seriously, even to most conservatives.
yes_or_gnome 8y ago
Like most days, I had no intention of comment on HN today, but whenever I'm reminded of the Innocence Project[1] I'm reminded by one of the most mind-blowing moments in my life. This was in college, I had a PoliSci professor (Political Science) that stated, 'I believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent.' To add context, this professor was an older, white male, however that's not the mind-blowing bit. That bit comes later. Let's face it, in the US, one's opinion on the OJ Simpson verdict varies greatly by one's ethnicity. As a (much) younger, white male, I held the stereotypical view point that he was guilty, so the professor's statement rapt my attention. I can't remember his arguments specifically, but it was enough for me to doubt my own assumptions and read about the trial myself. My "mind-blowing" moment came when I switched my opinion from "clearly guilty" to "I think OJ Simpson was guilty, but I'm not confident enough to convict him." While the details of that case are fascinating, that's not the purpose of this comment. The tie-in to OP's comment is this, the Innocence Project was started by Barry Scheck[2] and Peter Neufeld[3] in 1992. Both Scheck and Neufeld were instrumental members on Simpon's "Dream Team"[4] responsible for discrediting the DNA evidence. If you remember the constant media coverage of the trial, Scheck was the attorney responsible for questioning forensic experts and the LAPDs collection practices. Again, I don't want to get into particulars of the case, but their arguments are very convincing (to me). Obviously, the project was started prior to the OJ Simpson trial (in 1995) and regardless of one's opinion of Simpson's innocence, I think that most people will agree that single case led to increased scrutiny of forensic evidence and a reduction of importance placed on unreliable eyewitness testimony are a net positive to the world. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Scheck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Scheck [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Neufeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Neufeld [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Team_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Team_(law) Additional Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

stcredzero 8y ago

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation This principle isn't just a matter of protecting the innocent. It's about protecting democracy. The power of the judiciary is potent, and millennia of history can show us how corrupt governments can abuse false accusations to oppress the populace. A society that gives up due process and the presumption of innocence is one that is giving the keys over to oppressors.

white-flame 8y ago
Then consider that many convicted felons also lose the right to vote.

spamizbad 8y ago

One of the many problematic things about criminal justice in the United States is this: Many prosecutors and police officers feel that, even if you weren't guilty of this crime, you were probably guilty of something, the law just "caught up with you." so if a plausible case can be made against you they'll do it. And it's important to understand this isn't merely a cynical view held by these people: it's a strongly held conviction. Had Mr. Dixon been thoroughly exonerated at his original hearing, I can assure you both the arresting officer and prosecutor involved would be absolutely furious that he "got away with it" Attempts to curtail this behavior are met with endless concern-trolling and belly-aching from DA and police departments, claiming it lets criminals roam free because they use these laws (civil liberties) to "cheat the system". They are gas-lighting you, and don't want you to ask: how are a bunch of impoverished teens, who never completed high school, and likely never left a 6 block radius of where they grew up, somehow out-maneuvering politically powerful DAs with well-educated prosecutors backed up by well-funded militarized police departments? The constitution is powerful, but it's not that powerful.

sangnoir 8y ago
> Many prosecutors and police officers feel that, even if you weren't guilty of this crime, you were probably guilty of something You are right, the prosecutors feel that way. From the article: But despite Mr Dixon's exoneration, prosecutors say he did provide the murder weapon, which they described as a machine gun. They also said he was an "up-and-coming drug dealer" in Buffalo at the time of his arrest. "Mr Dixon is innocent of the shooting and of the murder for what he was found guilty of, but Mr Dixon brought the gun to the fight," said the district attorney.
- totalZero 8y ago
  You're taking the quote out of context. Dixon's conviction on the fourth charge, criminal possession of the murder weapon, was not overturned, and the DA is stating the reason for that. Dixon was, in fact, guilty of something. Not only that, but Dixon's status as a drug dealer is a materially relevant fact of the relationship between himself and Scott, who in fact committed the murder. (See quote below). This DA has been in the job for less than a year and he is the person who ordered the review. He has pointed out that there was no physical evidence of any kind used in the trial to convict Dixon, among other statements he has made in support of overturning the murder conviction. From https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-inmate-valentino-dixon-cleared-1991-murder-golf-drawings/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-inmate-valentino-dixon... "There was a fight. Shots were fired. I grabbed the gun from under the bench, switched it to automatic, all the bullets shot out. Unfortunately, Torriano ended up dying," Lamarr Scott, who has been in prison for 25 years for an unrelated attempted murder, told the court. "I dropped the gun and ran and it was over and done with." 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 8 1/3 to 25 years in prison, concurrent with his current term. 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. "You are eligible for release today," the judge said, igniting applause and shouts from courtroom supporters. "Mr. Dixon is not an innocent man. Don't be misguided in that at all," Erie County District Attorney John Flynn told reporters after the hearing. He described Dixon as "an up-and-coming drug dealer in the city of Buffalo" at the time of the shooting and said Scott was Dixon's bodyguard. "Mr. Dixon is innocent of the shooting and of the murder for what he was found guilty of," he said, "but Mr. Dixon brought the gun to the fight. It was Mr. Dixon's gun."

pastor_elm 8y ago

should be considered 'cruel and unusual' on an innocent man in light of the circumstances. Unfortunately, the founders didn't specifically spell out how to handle a 21th century for-profit prison system in the Constitution, so no go with 'Originalist' judges.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
krapp 8y ago
>Unfortunately, the founders didn't specifically spell out how to handle a 21th century for-profit prison system in the Constitution, so no go with 'Originalist' judges. The founding fathers would not have granted the inmate in question Constitutional rights to begin with... so the question is moot. The premise of "originalist" judges in the modern day is more a political fantasy than fact, and would be unacceptable in modern society if taken seriously, even to most conservatives.

yes_or_gnome 8y ago

Like most days, I had no intention of comment on HN today, but whenever I'm reminded of the Innocence Project[1] I'm reminded by one of the most mind-blowing moments in my life. This was in college, I had a PoliSci professor (Political Science) that stated, 'I believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent.' To add context, this professor was an older, white male, however that's not the mind-blowing bit. That bit comes later. Let's face it, in the US, one's opinion on the OJ Simpson verdict varies greatly by one's ethnicity. As a (much) younger, white male, I held the stereotypical view point that he was guilty, so the professor's statement rapt my attention. I can't remember his arguments specifically, but it was enough for me to doubt my own assumptions and read about the trial myself. My "mind-blowing" moment came when I switched my opinion from "clearly guilty" to "I think OJ Simpson was guilty, but I'm not confident enough to convict him." While the details of that case are fascinating, that's not the purpose of this comment. The tie-in to OP's comment is this, the Innocence Project was started by Barry Scheck[2] and Peter Neufeld[3] in 1992. Both Scheck and Neufeld were instrumental members on Simpon's "Dream Team"[4] responsible for discrediting the DNA evidence. If you remember the constant media coverage of the trial, Scheck was the attorney responsible for questioning forensic experts and the LAPDs collection practices. Again, I don't want to get into particulars of the case, but their arguments are very convincing (to me). Obviously, the project was started prior to the OJ Simpson trial (in 1995) and regardless of one's opinion of Simpson's innocence, I think that most people will agree that single case led to increased scrutiny of forensic evidence and a reduction of importance placed on unreliable eyewitness testimony are a net positive to the world. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Scheck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Scheck [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Neufeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Neufeld [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Team_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Team_(law) Additional Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson