5 ms·

Imagine if you took a job where, 30 years after you quit, someone could come after you because of something that might not have been your fault. If you railroa

Imagine if you took a job where, 30 years after you quit, someone could come after you because of something that might not have been your fault. If you railroaded an innocent man, tainted evidence, or otherwise brought about a false conviction with massive incompetence, I don't see any problem with people coming after you 30 years later.

zdw 16y ago
The problem is collateral damage. Determining who in the hundreds of people who may have touched upon the case, is at fault and was intentionally distorting evidence is difficult. The majority of people, given the knowledge they had at the time, were likely just doing their job. We, the public, would have to pay for the enormous investigation, which likely would be inconclusive (it's not obvious DNA evidence like exonerated him). You could, for example, tie certain people to this standard (say the district attorney) but that would cause other consequences - every case that wasn't a complete slam-dunk guilty might get ignored, even if there was sufficient evidence. (edit: formatting/clarity)
- sharpneli 16y ago
  "The majority of people, given the knowledge they had at the time, were likely just doing their job." Please do not take this as an example of Godwin's Law but I think Nuremberg trials made it clear that 'just doing their job' is not an applicable defense. Of course the magnitude of the acts is way different but the precedent exists.
wisty 16y ago
You forgot - halted the search for the real monster, because you already found a guy who looks kinda similar. Sloppy convictions are only good for the guilty.
lutorm 16y ago
Incompetence isn't criminal. I think the core problem is the incentives, like someone said. It's even in the design of the system, the DA is supposed to try to convict the suspect. What about the jury that convicted him? I know that's not criminal, but they're supposed to be the last stand of justice. I find it incredible that they would unanimously discount what his family said and find him guilty. It's a pretty sad evidence of the prejudices of members of society.
- gabrielroth 16y ago
  I think the core problem is the incentives, like someone said. Agreed. It's even in the design of the system, the DA is supposed to try to convict the suspect. In and of itself that's not a perverse incentive. The system is adversarial: the DA is supposed to try to convict, and the defense is supposed to try to acquit. Plus the defense has a huge advantage, because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution; the defense only has to establish reasonable doubt about the suspect's guilt. You could argue with it, but it's not an obviously terrible design. The problems are with the implementation, chiefly: (a) the prosecution almost always has vastly better resources than the defense; and (b) judges and juries totally ignore the burden-of-proof rule.
  - WalterBright 16y ago
    Your last point is the main one. Juries seem to convict based on a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. I would also argue that if the only evidence is a single eyewitness' testimony, that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- kabdib 16y ago
  The information to jurors is often controlled. You're not told of the outcome of prior failed trials, evidence is suppressed (by either side). Machinations of all kinds can make it tough for a jury to know what the truth was. A jury doesn't have access to the truth. The jurors generally cannot ask questions; instead, they "watch courtroom TV" and are pandered to and fed material carefully crafted by both sides in an attempt to influence the jury's decision. I wouldn't crucify a jury unless there was solid evidence that they deliberately convicted someone they knew was innocent.
  - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
    I think the one watching court room tv is you rather than the jury. Just try and place yourself in the shoes of one of those 12 people who had to decide whether to let the man go free or go in prison for actual life, and make such decision not based on any incentive or interest whatever but your sense of consciousness and justice and see how lightly you will rely on some tv courtroom drama.

zdw 16y ago

The problem is collateral damage. Determining who in the hundreds of people who may have touched upon the case, is at fault and was intentionally distorting evidence is difficult. The majority of people, given the knowledge they had at the time, were likely just doing their job. We, the public, would have to pay for the enormous investigation, which likely would be inconclusive (it's not obvious DNA evidence like exonerated him). You could, for example, tie certain people to this standard (say the district attorney) but that would cause other consequences - every case that wasn't a complete slam-dunk guilty might get ignored, even if there was sufficient evidence. (edit: formatting/clarity)

sharpneli 16y ago
"The majority of people, given the knowledge they had at the time, were likely just doing their job." Please do not take this as an example of Godwin's Law but I think Nuremberg trials made it clear that 'just doing their job' is not an applicable defense. Of course the magnitude of the acts is way different but the precedent exists.

wisty 16y ago

You forgot - halted the search for the real monster, because you already found a guy who looks kinda similar. Sloppy convictions are only good for the guilty.

lutorm 16y ago

Incompetence isn't criminal. I think the core problem is the incentives, like someone said. It's even in the design of the system, the DA is supposed to try to convict the suspect. What about the jury that convicted him? I know that's not criminal, but they're supposed to be the last stand of justice. I find it incredible that they would unanimously discount what his family said and find him guilty. It's a pretty sad evidence of the prejudices of members of society.

gabrielroth 16y ago
I think the core problem is the incentives, like someone said. Agreed. It's even in the design of the system, the DA is supposed to try to convict the suspect. In and of itself that's not a perverse incentive. The system is adversarial: the DA is supposed to try to convict, and the defense is supposed to try to acquit. Plus the defense has a huge advantage, because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution; the defense only has to establish reasonable doubt about the suspect's guilt. You could argue with it, but it's not an obviously terrible design. The problems are with the implementation, chiefly: (a) the prosecution almost always has vastly better resources than the defense; and (b) judges and juries totally ignore the burden-of-proof rule.
- WalterBright 16y ago
  Your last point is the main one. Juries seem to convict based on a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. I would also argue that if the only evidence is a single eyewitness' testimony, that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
kabdib 16y ago
The information to jurors is often controlled. You're not told of the outcome of prior failed trials, evidence is suppressed (by either side). Machinations of all kinds can make it tough for a jury to know what the truth was. A jury doesn't have access to the truth. The jurors generally cannot ask questions; instead, they "watch courtroom TV" and are pandered to and fed material carefully crafted by both sides in an attempt to influence the jury's decision. I wouldn't crucify a jury unless there was solid evidence that they deliberately convicted someone they knew was innocent.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  I think the one watching court room tv is you rather than the jury. Just try and place yourself in the shoes of one of those 12 people who had to decide whether to let the man go free or go in prison for actual life, and make such decision not based on any incentive or interest whatever but your sense of consciousness and justice and see how lightly you will rely on some tv courtroom drama.