3 ms·

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.

by tyrust 8y ago

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.
- gammateam 8y ago
  we are primarily appalled that you (or people that say similar things) don't consider what the appropriate punishment for that would be what it currently is legally in that jurisdiction, what it was in 1991, and if either of those punishments holistically help or harm a productive society what you write suggests that you view the state as unquestionable - and that its acceptable enough that they did an "almost right" thing given the circumstances - when they do arbitrary things even our constitution tried to deter.
  - bostonpete 8y ago
    My point was that it's not clear to me that Dixon was really a victim in all this, even if there were problems with the case that justify vacating his conviction. I didn't suggest that the state is unquestionable -- but I don't think this case is a cut & dry illustration of the wrongs that the Innocence Project can help to right. As far as what the appropriate punishment would be, I would think an appropriate punishment for driving your body guard to a crime scene and giving them a murder weapon should be the same as the punishment for murder. I'm no lawyer though, that's just my intuitive assessment.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      > but I don't think this case is a cut & dry illustration of the wrongs that the Innocence Project can help to right. And I don't think the 'Innocence Project' or any exoneration efforts should be based on how empathetic people are to the convict. Let's continue highlighting the wide discretion the prosecutors are able to use even when technically prohibited, and the lack of incentives for the state to undermine its monopoly on authority and investigate itself. Let's make these 'tiny administrative offenses' so intolerable and egregious that there is selective evolution towards better investigations and better evidence collection. Real consequences for operating outside of those bounds. Easier remedies for the people accused and convicted. THE ACTUAL MURDERER BEING OFF THE STREET if anyone's pooled resources are going to be used by this public entity at all, what a concept. Those are my perspectives.
    - tyrust 8y ago
      >it's not clear to me that Dixon was really a victim in all this And that's where I think the perspective is messed up. Sentencing guidelines are codified in law. This man received and served a non-trivial portion of a sentence that he did not deserve. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity here: he is a victim of a failure of the legal system. As a victim his damages amount to at least 12 years of his life. Note that this makes him less of a criminal for the crimes he did commit. Not really relevant to our conversation, but where did you get this "body guard" quote?
      - mcguire 8y ago
        ""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." From the ESPN link.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
mcguire 8y ago
1. 12 < 27. If I'm reading that correctly, one of the convictions was reversed; he wasn't found innocent. 2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe.
- tyrust 8y ago
  >1. 12 < 27. If I'm reading that correctly, one of the convictions was reversed; he wasn't found innocent. I don't understand. He served 27 years. You say he should have served up to 15. The difference is 12 years that the justice system has to answer for. >2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe. Unless you have something substantive to reference you're just muddying the waters with this statement.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    I honestly have no idea what the first point was supposed to mean. Sorry. Substantive points: * Dixon is innocent of shooting Jackson. * There was significant prosecutorial malfeasance in his prosecution, along with limited defense competence. * According to Scott in the ESPN article, Dixon did supply the weapon and drove the two of them to the location. * According to the prosecutor, Scott worked for Dixon, who was admittedly dealing drugs. * Dixon was also convicted of supplying the illegal weapon with which Jackson was shot. He was not innocent. "What kind of person sends an innocent man to prison just to score a win in a case?" -- fjcp "The prosecutors will not face any real consequences for ruining an innocent man's life." -- gizmo "They clearly knew that this guy wasn't guilty of murder since somebody else confessed to the murder yet they let the innocent guy behind bars probably thinking "i got no hard feelings, that guy would have ended up killing someone one day"." -- onemoresoop This is not the case of someone saying "He's a bad guy, so he deserved to be in jail anyway".

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.

by 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.

gammateam 8y ago
we are primarily appalled that you (or people that say similar things) don't consider what the appropriate punishment for that would be what it currently is legally in that jurisdiction, what it was in 1991, and if either of those punishments holistically help or harm a productive society what you write suggests that you view the state as unquestionable - and that its acceptable enough that they did an "almost right" thing given the circumstances - when they do arbitrary things even our constitution tried to deter.
- bostonpete 8y ago
  My point was that it's not clear to me that Dixon was really a victim in all this, even if there were problems with the case that justify vacating his conviction. I didn't suggest that the state is unquestionable -- but I don't think this case is a cut & dry illustration of the wrongs that the Innocence Project can help to right. As far as what the appropriate punishment would be, I would think an appropriate punishment for driving your body guard to a crime scene and giving them a murder weapon should be the same as the punishment for murder. I'm no lawyer though, that's just my intuitive assessment.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    > but I don't think this case is a cut & dry illustration of the wrongs that the Innocence Project can help to right. And I don't think the 'Innocence Project' or any exoneration efforts should be based on how empathetic people are to the convict. Let's continue highlighting the wide discretion the prosecutors are able to use even when technically prohibited, and the lack of incentives for the state to undermine its monopoly on authority and investigate itself. Let's make these 'tiny administrative offenses' so intolerable and egregious that there is selective evolution towards better investigations and better evidence collection. Real consequences for operating outside of those bounds. Easier remedies for the people accused and convicted. THE ACTUAL MURDERER BEING OFF THE STREET if anyone's pooled resources are going to be used by this public entity at all, what a concept. Those are my perspectives.
  - tyrust 8y ago
    >it's not clear to me that Dixon was really a victim in all this And that's where I think the perspective is messed up. Sentencing guidelines are codified in law. This man received and served a non-trivial portion of a sentence that he did not deserve. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity here: he is a victim of a failure of the legal system. As a victim his damages amount to at least 12 years of his life. Note that this makes him less of a criminal for the crimes he did commit. Not really relevant to our conversation, but where did you get this "body guard" quote?
    - mcguire 8y ago
      ""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." From the ESPN link.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

mcguire 8y ago

1. 12 < 27. If I'm reading that correctly, one of the convictions was reversed; he wasn't found innocent. 2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe.

tyrust 8y ago
>1. 12 < 27. If I'm reading that correctly, one of the convictions was reversed; he wasn't found innocent. I don't understand. He served 27 years. You say he should have served up to 15. The difference is 12 years that the justice system has to answer for. >2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe. Unless you have something substantive to reference you're just muddying the waters with this statement.
- mcguire 8y ago
  I honestly have no idea what the first point was supposed to mean. Sorry. Substantive points: * Dixon is innocent of shooting Jackson. * There was significant prosecutorial malfeasance in his prosecution, along with limited defense competence. * According to Scott in the ESPN article, Dixon did supply the weapon and drove the two of them to the location. * According to the prosecutor, Scott worked for Dixon, who was admittedly dealing drugs. * Dixon was also convicted of supplying the illegal weapon with which Jackson was shot. He was not innocent. "What kind of person sends an innocent man to prison just to score a win in a case?" -- fjcp "The prosecutors will not face any real consequences for ruining an innocent man's life." -- gizmo "They clearly knew that this guy wasn't guilty of murder since somebody else confessed to the murder yet they let the innocent guy behind bars probably thinking "i got no hard feelings, that guy would have ended up killing someone one day"." -- onemoresoop This is not the case of someone saying "He's a bad guy, so he deserved to be in jail anyway".