4 ms·

> When you're innocent you think that your innocence means something. It doesn't. Discount it and move on. ... If you're guilty ... no idea how to help you. No

by fwn 7y ago

> When you're innocent you think that your innocence means something. It doesn't. Discount it and move on. ... If you're guilty ... no idea how to help you. Not sure how to read that. Is this consistent? I'm not trying to bait or anything. Judicial institutions aren't about some objective truth somewhere out in the universe. Best case scenario is that their processes provide stability. (The nice, good governance kind of stability, therefore creating legitimacy, being predictable etc.) I can therefore fully understand the first part. No idea why they chose to return to the question of guilt again later in their comment. It wouldn't change a thing in the usefulness of their advice.

jacquesm 7y ago
There is no inconsistency there. The first part is about how an individual that knows that they are innocent should not expect that to count for anything in the eyes of others. The second part is to ensure that he doesn't waste his time on people that are really guilty because in the end that will go nowhere. Just like the innocence project has pre-screening to ensure they are not wasting their time.
- fwn 7y ago
  > The first part is about how an individual that knows that they are innocent should not expect that to count for anything in the eyes of others. The second part is to ensure that he doesn't waste his time on people that are really guilty because in the end that will go nowhere. Again, I think this is inconsistent. The original comment author is bound to be one of those third parties where objective innocence does not matter. But if it "will go nowhere" as soon as objective innocence isn't a given, it does apparently matter. Now does it, or doesn't it matter?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I think you've been adequately answered more than once in this thread, if you insist that that is not the case then I would assume that you have your mind made up and further discourse is not productive. That's not me trying to be rude, just an observation.
    - fwn 7y ago
      Oh, okay. Now that's quite an unexpected response to get here. Nothing can have both an effect and not an effect at the same time. It's a logical error and reformulating this same error is not a fix.
      - ifdefdebug 7y ago
        I will try. As soon as "objective innocence isn't a given", the prosecutor will be able to produce true evidence to prove you guilty (not always, but mostly). Thus "will go nowhere". If "objective innocence" is given, the prosecutor, by definition, can't provide true evidence to prove you guilty. So they need help to hold up their fake case, and one way to provide help for that is acting like an ingenuous innocent who thinks nothing can happen to them because they are innocent.
x3ro 7y ago
I thought exactly the same thing so I'm curious why people are downvoting you. I think saying both those things is logically inconsistent. Edit: especially in a jury-based system it seems like it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not, but whether the jury believes your story. In addition, many (most?) people who commit crimes do not necessarily think of themselves as criminals, though admittedly I got forgot from which source I got this. Edit2: bottom line: why would influencing a jury suddenly stop working when you're guilty.
- michaelt 7y ago
  > why would influencing a jury suddenly stop working when you're guilty. One would hope it would be easier to be found innocent when you are innocent - easier to produce evidence and proof of things that are true, and to produce convincingly honest testimony when you were being honest.
  - croon 7y ago
    But the initial point was explicitly that innocence doesn't matter. I understand GPs confusion.
- afthonos 7y ago
  > Edit: especially in a jury-based system it seems like it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not, but whether the jury believes your story. The US is not a jury-based system, but a plea-bargain-based system. Over over 94% of cases never go in front of a jury. [1] And while theoretically you can insist on your case going to trial, a few things will happen to you: 1. Your public defender will do everything possible to discourage you, because they don't have the resources to take you to trial. 2. As a consequence of not having resources, they will in fact be correct in discouraging you. 3. The prosecutor will charge you with far more counts, and a potential sentence that is much higher than what you'll get in a plea deal. Note that the extra counts don't need to be provable. What they do is two things: 1. Add to your defense burden. 2. Put intense psychological pressure ("If I take this felony deal I get five years, but I might get TWENTY FIVE if I take this to trial and lose.") If you can afford a good lawyer, the plea deal calculus works better, of course, since you now have a credible threat of taking a bad case to court and demolishing the prosecutor. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judg...
saberdancer 7y ago
I think that the advice is that just because you know you are innocent that is not enough, they will still assume you are guilty (regardless of innocent until proven guilty) and that you need to come at it from the point of how can I change their mind from me being guilty to me being innocent. Imagine you are innocent and you naively believe they can't convict you because you know you are innocent. There is no device to test for innocence so in the end it is not that hard or impossible to end up in jail even when you are innocent.
matwood 7y ago
You know the stories of criminals who have been arrested multiple times, convicted a few times, but are not jail? The reason is that for the most part guilty people, knowing they are guilty, will hide things. They will naturally avoid giving the police anything that can be construed to point to them being guilty. An innocent person on the other hand, knowing they are innocent, will just talk. They will speak only looking at what they say in the best light. They will not realize that everything they say is going to be construed by the police to fit their theory of the crime. This is why it is important for an innocent person to think like a guilty person during their interactions with the police.

by fwn 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

There is no inconsistency there. The first part is about how an individual that knows that they are innocent should not expect that to count for anything in the eyes of others. The second part is to ensure that he doesn't waste his time on people that are really guilty because in the end that will go nowhere. Just like the innocence project has pre-screening to ensure they are not wasting their time.

fwn 7y ago
> The first part is about how an individual that knows that they are innocent should not expect that to count for anything in the eyes of others. The second part is to ensure that he doesn't waste his time on people that are really guilty because in the end that will go nowhere. Again, I think this is inconsistent. The original comment author is bound to be one of those third parties where objective innocence does not matter. But if it "will go nowhere" as soon as objective innocence isn't a given, it does apparently matter. Now does it, or doesn't it matter?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I think you've been adequately answered more than once in this thread, if you insist that that is not the case then I would assume that you have your mind made up and further discourse is not productive. That's not me trying to be rude, just an observation.
  - fwn 7y ago
    Oh, okay. Now that's quite an unexpected response to get here. Nothing can have both an effect and not an effect at the same time. It's a logical error and reformulating this same error is not a fix.
    - ifdefdebug 7y ago
      I will try. As soon as "objective innocence isn't a given", the prosecutor will be able to produce true evidence to prove you guilty (not always, but mostly). Thus "will go nowhere". If "objective innocence" is given, the prosecutor, by definition, can't provide true evidence to prove you guilty. So they need help to hold up their fake case, and one way to provide help for that is acting like an ingenuous innocent who thinks nothing can happen to them because they are innocent.

x3ro 7y ago

I thought exactly the same thing so I'm curious why people are downvoting you. I think saying both those things is logically inconsistent. Edit: especially in a jury-based system it seems like it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not, but whether the jury believes your story. In addition, many (most?) people who commit crimes do not necessarily think of themselves as criminals, though admittedly I got forgot from which source I got this. Edit2: bottom line: why would influencing a jury suddenly stop working when you're guilty.

michaelt 7y ago
> why would influencing a jury suddenly stop working when you're guilty. One would hope it would be easier to be found innocent when you are innocent - easier to produce evidence and proof of things that are true, and to produce convincingly honest testimony when you were being honest.
- croon 7y ago
  But the initial point was explicitly that innocence doesn't matter. I understand GPs confusion.
afthonos 7y ago
> Edit: especially in a jury-based system it seems like it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not, but whether the jury believes your story. The US is not a jury-based system, but a plea-bargain-based system. Over over 94% of cases never go in front of a jury. [1] And while theoretically you can insist on your case going to trial, a few things will happen to you: 1. Your public defender will do everything possible to discourage you, because they don't have the resources to take you to trial. 2. As a consequence of not having resources, they will in fact be correct in discouraging you. 3. The prosecutor will charge you with far more counts, and a potential sentence that is much higher than what you'll get in a plea deal. Note that the extra counts don't need to be provable. What they do is two things: 1. Add to your defense burden. 2. Put intense psychological pressure ("If I take this felony deal I get five years, but I might get TWENTY FIVE if I take this to trial and lose.") If you can afford a good lawyer, the plea deal calculus works better, of course, since you now have a credible threat of taking a bad case to court and demolishing the prosecutor. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judg...

saberdancer 7y ago

I think that the advice is that just because you know you are innocent that is not enough, they will still assume you are guilty (regardless of innocent until proven guilty) and that you need to come at it from the point of how can I change their mind from me being guilty to me being innocent. Imagine you are innocent and you naively believe they can't convict you because you know you are innocent. There is no device to test for innocence so in the end it is not that hard or impossible to end up in jail even when you are innocent.

matwood 7y ago

You know the stories of criminals who have been arrested multiple times, convicted a few times, but are not jail? The reason is that for the most part guilty people, knowing they are guilty, will hide things. They will naturally avoid giving the police anything that can be construed to point to them being guilty. An innocent person on the other hand, knowing they are innocent, will just talk. They will speak only looking at what they say in the best light. They will not realize that everything they say is going to be construed by the police to fit their theory of the crime. This is why it is important for an innocent person to think like a guilty person during their interactions with the police.