7 ms·

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

by 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.
bugsy 16y ago
I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence. What the jury isn't told is that the defendant was rousted up when the word went out to bring in whatever black men they could find in the neighborhood. What the jury isn't told is that the initial report was of a man with face stubble and not the full beard he had when arrested. Now the jury was told that there were multiple alibis, all of whom were black family members. They can be blamed for that. But really, seeing the little girl point to the man and say she is certain he is the one who raped her she remembers his face quite clearly, are you really going to say you would vote to acquit? Or would you assume the family members are lying to protect their own.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  "I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence." Evidence? You wouldn't blame the jury on this one? Fuck that. That's not evidence. That's ignorance. I blame the jury 100%.
  - khafra 16y ago
    Testimony from the victim is considered evidence in most court systems. I wouldn't expect a jury of average people, especially back then, to be aware of the cognitive biases that made the testimony so unreliable.

by lutorm 16y ago

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.

bugsy 16y ago

I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence. What the jury isn't told is that the defendant was rousted up when the word went out to bring in whatever black men they could find in the neighborhood. What the jury isn't told is that the initial report was of a man with face stubble and not the full beard he had when arrested. Now the jury was told that there were multiple alibis, all of whom were black family members. They can be blamed for that. But really, seeing the little girl point to the man and say she is certain he is the one who raped her she remembers his face quite clearly, are you really going to say you would vote to acquit? Or would you assume the family members are lying to protect their own.

jamesbritt 16y ago
"I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence." Evidence? You wouldn't blame the jury on this one? Fuck that. That's not evidence. That's ignorance. I blame the jury 100%.
- khafra 16y ago
  Testimony from the victim is considered evidence in most court systems. I wouldn't expect a jury of average people, especially back then, to be aware of the cognitive biases that made the testimony so unreliable.