6 ms·

[Disclaimer: aerospace industry veteran] When a plane crashes, it is standard procedure to determine exactly what went wrong, what weaknesses in the "system" e

by edw519 16y ago

[Disclaimer: aerospace industry veteran] When a plane crashes, it is standard procedure to determine exactly what went wrong, what weaknesses in the "system" enabled what went wrong to go wrong, what prescription is needed to fix that system, and for the system to be fixed. This was a plane crash. I know this article was about one man, but there's no mention of anything about fixing what must have been broken in the first place. Sadly, I fear, because it doesn't exist.

axiom 16y ago
Well, the change that prevents this from happening again is DNA evidence. Definitely the human factors that caused this will still complicate things, but at least the most egregious kinds of cases can be prevented.
- quattrofan 16y ago
  Don't be sure that having DNA evidence will mean there will never be a miscarriage of justice. So many reasons that can still happen.
  - foljs 16y ago
    How about DNA evidence being present and found evidence enough, while the guy it belongs to is innocent? For example, one person could have had sex with a murdered woman earlier --and left his DNA--, but someone else killed her. The D.A. though, will have a field day on him...
- bugsy 16y ago
  The DNA got him released in the end but it's not the problem with the system since there are cases with no DNA evidence in which people are wrongfully convicted the exact same way he was. Here is a summary of what happened. He is a black. All blacks look alike and are criminals. Therefore he is guilty. This is what went wrong and needs to be fixed, just as with an airplane that leaks fuel and isn't detected because of a faulty fuel readout, the answer isn't to carry more fuel. Here are some things that are broken. 1. There is a presumption of guilt. 2. Prosecutors are interested in their kill ratio, not justice. 3. Judges are interested in arbitrary exercise of power, not justice. 4. It is very rare to find a public defender who diligently defends the interest of the defense. Public defenders work with the prosecution to get the case through the system. 5. In some jurisdictions elected judges don't need to have law backgrounds, or have demonstrated any competence or knowledge of the law. 6. The prison system is about punishment and exercise of power, not rehabilitation.
  - Charuru 16y ago
    But that's sort of how most things work though. The positive, good outcomes are sort of incidental (though hopefully intentional) side effects of a complex system of incentives that are usually not perfectly aligned. ie, why does Exxon Mobil drill oil? Because they sincerely truly love that black stuff? No because they want to make money. The system could probably be improved with good economic analysis, but just because the incentives are misaligned does not mean they're broken.
    - caf 16y ago
      What would Exxon do if they could get away with selling any old blackish liquid as if it were oil?
  - Sakes 16y ago
    1) Agree: Presumption of guilt is definitely a problem. I would assume we could blame prejudices, arrogance (over confidence in pre-judging), or profession apathy for this. 2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in any way because they think the accused might be innocent they are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury. 3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power? This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute, which are typically wrong. 4) Agree: I would guess that this is the sad consequence of the talent going where the money is. In some states lawyers are required to do X amount of pro bono cases a year. I am sure this helps but maybe there is something else we could do. 5) ?: Do you have examples of this for Judges that oversee criminal court proceedings? 6) No opinion here for the prison system.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      For #2, you have them doing things like hiding exculpatory evidence. I don't think that's what they should be doing. If they find something that proves a guy innocent (e.g. they do a DNA analysis that excludes the suspect), they have no right to hide it just to get a conviction. For #3, I tend to agree with you, but there are a handful of hang 'em judges out there. For #5, I don't have any examples because that happens only in a handful of states and the people who appoint the judges usually have more sense than to appoint someone absurd. That said, Supreme Court appointments only require Presidential approval and Congress' consent to the choice. There has been a justice or two that wasn't exactly a highly regarded legal mind, but with the appointments being so contentious these days, in practice, they tend to appoint people with auspicious pedigrees.
- gwern 16y ago
  > Well, the change that prevents this from happening again is DNA evidence. This is the very optimistic interpretation - another tool and a permanent reduction in the wrongful conviction rate. The pessimistic interpretation is that DNA tests served as a short-term oracle where the system nigh-magically was stripped naked and its true past error rate laid bare, but to which the system will slowly adapt and figure out how to circumvent. We can probably expect in a few decades to start seeing articles about how DNA evidence gets lost, misinterpreted, planted (remember OJ and the issues with the blood evidence? more than a few police have no issues with framing a guilty man, it seems), and other such strategies that are not obvious to people outside the system. In other words, if there were suddenly another nigh-magical breakthrough which gave us a second look at true error rates, we would see, superimposed on whatever other trends are going on, a dip in the '80s-'90s and then a slow increase to whenever the second breakthrough's innocence projects got going. Unfortunately, this is a very long-term prediction and there may never again be a breakthrough as dramatic as DNA testing which would give us the second oracle, so who knows if time will let us distinguish between the optimistic and pessimistic interpretations. (Related ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)
- danssig 16y ago
  I think you need to go see how DNA evidence is actually used. CSI is not remotely like what goes on, forensics is not any kind of science it's just a kind of "best practices" from cops. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm DNA has a lot of issues as well. http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.htm...
epynonymous 16y ago
fully agree. unfortunately systems are as perfect as the people that run them, in this case the rotten judge, attorney, and even the victim really did this man great injustice. you wonder what ever happened to the victim and the real felon.
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  I don't think that's the whole story or planes would crash all the time because someone somewhere failed to do their job properly after a night out with friends. Checks and balances matter. Process matters. The art of organization is to have an open upper bound of what is possible to achieve and still make sure there is a limit to the downside. Of course it will never be perfect and there is no process and no rules that can work without a sufficient share of decent individuals trying to do their job properly.
makmanalp 16y ago
The fact that the appeals were denied is eye-opening. Maybe that shouldn't be allowed? But I'm sure there are tons of non-legitimate appeals too.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Exactly right, sad to say.
solipsist 16y ago
From the founder of the Innocence Project: What are other countries doing to improve their criminal justice systems? Canada is the first country in the world to have "innocence commissions". What they do is truly marvellous. They will perform a post-mortem on the case of a man who was wrongly convicted and find out what went wrong and what they can do to reduce the likelihood of it happening again in the future. That is what you do in science, that's what you do in medicine, that's what you do in every other institution where life or liberty is at stake. We don't do it in the US when it comes to criminal justice, and that is appalling. http://truthinjustice.org/neufeld-interview.htm http://truthinjustice.org/neufeld-interview.htm
- thangalin 16y ago
  Would that I have had two votes to give...
  - knieveltech 16y ago
    Here, take mine.
  - solipsist 16y ago
    Wait, what do you mean?
    - scotth 16y ago
      He means "wish". He wants to upvote you twice.
      - solipsist 16y ago
        His comments show he is from Canada. I guess that explains his strong approval of the quote. :)
- yannickmahe 16y ago
  It seems so obvious. Why don't more countries do that ?
alexqgb 16y ago
Instead, we handle this the way the Obama administration chose to handle the financial crash - by saying it was best "to just move on." I heard the FAA analogy when this (terrible) policy direction was becoming clear. The commenter observed that handling airplane failures with the same carelessness that we were applying to the banks would mean that no one would every fly. The problem with similar carelessness in the justice system is that you really can't avoid it by opting out.

by edw519 16y ago

axiom 16y ago

Well, the change that prevents this from happening again is DNA evidence. Definitely the human factors that caused this will still complicate things, but at least the most egregious kinds of cases can be prevented.

quattrofan 16y ago
Don't be sure that having DNA evidence will mean there will never be a miscarriage of justice. So many reasons that can still happen.
- foljs 16y ago
  How about DNA evidence being present and found evidence enough, while the guy it belongs to is innocent? For example, one person could have had sex with a murdered woman earlier --and left his DNA--, but someone else killed her. The D.A. though, will have a field day on him...
bugsy 16y ago
The DNA got him released in the end but it's not the problem with the system since there are cases with no DNA evidence in which people are wrongfully convicted the exact same way he was. Here is a summary of what happened. He is a black. All blacks look alike and are criminals. Therefore he is guilty. This is what went wrong and needs to be fixed, just as with an airplane that leaks fuel and isn't detected because of a faulty fuel readout, the answer isn't to carry more fuel. Here are some things that are broken. 1. There is a presumption of guilt. 2. Prosecutors are interested in their kill ratio, not justice. 3. Judges are interested in arbitrary exercise of power, not justice. 4. It is very rare to find a public defender who diligently defends the interest of the defense. Public defenders work with the prosecution to get the case through the system. 5. In some jurisdictions elected judges don't need to have law backgrounds, or have demonstrated any competence or knowledge of the law. 6. The prison system is about punishment and exercise of power, not rehabilitation.
- Charuru 16y ago
  But that's sort of how most things work though. The positive, good outcomes are sort of incidental (though hopefully intentional) side effects of a complex system of incentives that are usually not perfectly aligned. ie, why does Exxon Mobil drill oil? Because they sincerely truly love that black stuff? No because they want to make money. The system could probably be improved with good economic analysis, but just because the incentives are misaligned does not mean they're broken.
  - caf 16y ago
    What would Exxon do if they could get away with selling any old blackish liquid as if it were oil?
- Sakes 16y ago
  1) Agree: Presumption of guilt is definitely a problem. I would assume we could blame prejudices, arrogance (over confidence in pre-judging), or profession apathy for this. 2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in any way because they think the accused might be innocent they are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury. 3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power? This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute, which are typically wrong. 4) Agree: I would guess that this is the sad consequence of the talent going where the money is. In some states lawyers are required to do X amount of pro bono cases a year. I am sure this helps but maybe there is something else we could do. 5) ?: Do you have examples of this for Judges that oversee criminal court proceedings? 6) No opinion here for the prison system.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    For #2, you have them doing things like hiding exculpatory evidence. I don't think that's what they should be doing. If they find something that proves a guy innocent (e.g. they do a DNA analysis that excludes the suspect), they have no right to hide it just to get a conviction. For #3, I tend to agree with you, but there are a handful of hang 'em judges out there. For #5, I don't have any examples because that happens only in a handful of states and the people who appoint the judges usually have more sense than to appoint someone absurd. That said, Supreme Court appointments only require Presidential approval and Congress' consent to the choice. There has been a justice or two that wasn't exactly a highly regarded legal mind, but with the appointments being so contentious these days, in practice, they tend to appoint people with auspicious pedigrees.
gwern 16y ago
> Well, the change that prevents this from happening again is DNA evidence. This is the very optimistic interpretation - another tool and a permanent reduction in the wrongful conviction rate. The pessimistic interpretation is that DNA tests served as a short-term oracle where the system nigh-magically was stripped naked and its true past error rate laid bare, but to which the system will slowly adapt and figure out how to circumvent. We can probably expect in a few decades to start seeing articles about how DNA evidence gets lost, misinterpreted, planted (remember OJ and the issues with the blood evidence? more than a few police have no issues with framing a guilty man, it seems), and other such strategies that are not obvious to people outside the system. In other words, if there were suddenly another nigh-magical breakthrough which gave us a second look at true error rates, we would see, superimposed on whatever other trends are going on, a dip in the '80s-'90s and then a slow increase to whenever the second breakthrough's innocence projects got going. Unfortunately, this is a very long-term prediction and there may never again be a breakthrough as dramatic as DNA testing which would give us the second oracle, so who knows if time will let us distinguish between the optimistic and pessimistic interpretations. (Related ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)
danssig 16y ago
I think you need to go see how DNA evidence is actually used. CSI is not remotely like what goes on, forensics is not any kind of science it's just a kind of "best practices" from cops. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09054/950979-85.stm DNA has a lot of issues as well. http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.htm...

epynonymous 16y ago

fully agree. unfortunately systems are as perfect as the people that run them, in this case the rotten judge, attorney, and even the victim really did this man great injustice. you wonder what ever happened to the victim and the real felon.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago
I don't think that's the whole story or planes would crash all the time because someone somewhere failed to do their job properly after a night out with friends. Checks and balances matter. Process matters. The art of organization is to have an open upper bound of what is possible to achieve and still make sure there is a limit to the downside. Of course it will never be perfect and there is no process and no rules that can work without a sufficient share of decent individuals trying to do their job properly.

makmanalp 16y ago

The fact that the appeals were denied is eye-opening. Maybe that shouldn't be allowed? But I'm sure there are tons of non-legitimate appeals too.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Exactly right, sad to say.

solipsist 16y ago

From the founder of the Innocence Project: What are other countries doing to improve their criminal justice systems? Canada is the first country in the world to have "innocence commissions". What they do is truly marvellous. They will perform a post-mortem on the case of a man who was wrongly convicted and find out what went wrong and what they can do to reduce the likelihood of it happening again in the future. That is what you do in science, that's what you do in medicine, that's what you do in every other institution where life or liberty is at stake. We don't do it in the US when it comes to criminal justice, and that is appalling. http://truthinjustice.org/neufeld-interview.htm http://truthinjustice.org/neufeld-interview.htm

thangalin 16y ago
Would that I have had two votes to give...
- knieveltech 16y ago
  Here, take mine.
- solipsist 16y ago
  Wait, what do you mean?
  - scotth 16y ago
    He means "wish". He wants to upvote you twice.
    - solipsist 16y ago
      His comments show he is from Canada. I guess that explains his strong approval of the quote. :)
yannickmahe 16y ago
It seems so obvious. Why don't more countries do that ?

alexqgb 16y ago

Instead, we handle this the way the Obama administration chose to handle the financial crash - by saying it was best "to just move on." I heard the FAA analogy when this (terrible) policy direction was becoming clear. The commenter observed that handling airplane failures with the same carelessness that we were applying to the banks would mean that no one would every fly. The problem with similar carelessness in the justice system is that you really can't avoid it by opting out.