6 ms·

Firstly, I'm sorry you went through the system and had to face these kinds of issues. I generally agree with you. The fact some of these citizens people were l

Firstly, I'm sorry you went through the system and had to face these kinds of issues. I generally agree with you. The fact some of these citizens people were likely incorrectly executed, and others died in prison, based on bad science makes this depressing to read. However, I would factor in intent and knowledge on the part of lab workers and experts when demanding penalties for their action. If they intentionally lied to support a case, 100% they should have a sentence at least equal to and preferably greater than the person they are essentially framing. However, if they are just using equipment as trained, reading results as trained, and had no I'll intent? I don't think it makes the world better to throw them in jail.

hedora 4y ago
It's the explicit job of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts regardless of the defendant's guilt. This is the core of the US's adversarial justice system. (In the same way it is the defense attorney's job to get a not guilty ruling.) I think this should be changed, so that false convictions are treated with the same level of seriousness as police officers shooting unarmed civilians on camera. Patterns of prosecutorial misconduct should lead to prison time that is the sum of the false convictions, in the worst environment the falsely convicted parties ended up in. (So, probably not the country club minimal security white collar prison.) Also, the people in charge of this should be untouchable by the currently elected politicians they would likely be investigating. Fixed-term appointments with mandatory recusal rules probably make sense.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > It's the explicit job of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts regardless of the defendant's guilt. This is not correct; they're supposed to e.g. dismiss charges if they learn they've charged the wrong guy. The problem isn't that the system calls for them to convict innocent people. The problem is that they're evaluated by their conviction rate.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  ...the same level of seriousness as police officers shooting unarmed civilians on camera. Police officers in USA are almost never convicted of murder in these or any other circumstances. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-ra...
ROTMetro 4y ago
'90 percent of trial transcripts the Bureau analyzed as part of its Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review contained erroneous statements'. Would you be OK with a hospital having this level 'innocent mistake' rate? How about if 90% of a medicines studies had erroneous statements made by the same group of professionals? Would you be OK with an amusement park having a 90% failure rate when they attest to the safety of their equipment? Should not repeated failures that have a severe impact on people's lives be held to a higher standard than 'oops, my bad bro'? A doctor wouldn't get away with 90% erroneous statements, why do these professionals?

hedora 4y ago

It's the explicit job of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts regardless of the defendant's guilt. This is the core of the US's adversarial justice system. (In the same way it is the defense attorney's job to get a not guilty ruling.) I think this should be changed, so that false convictions are treated with the same level of seriousness as police officers shooting unarmed civilians on camera. Patterns of prosecutorial misconduct should lead to prison time that is the sum of the false convictions, in the worst environment the falsely convicted parties ended up in. (So, probably not the country club minimal security white collar prison.) Also, the people in charge of this should be untouchable by the currently elected politicians they would likely be investigating. Fixed-term appointments with mandatory recusal rules probably make sense.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> It's the explicit job of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts regardless of the defendant's guilt. This is not correct; they're supposed to e.g. dismiss charges if they learn they've charged the wrong guy. The problem isn't that the system calls for them to convict innocent people. The problem is that they're evaluated by their conviction rate.
jessaustin 4y ago
...the same level of seriousness as police officers shooting unarmed civilians on camera. Police officers in USA are almost never convicted of murder in these or any other circumstances. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-ra...

ROTMetro 4y ago

'90 percent of trial transcripts the Bureau analyzed as part of its Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review contained erroneous statements'. Would you be OK with a hospital having this level 'innocent mistake' rate? How about if 90% of a medicines studies had erroneous statements made by the same group of professionals? Would you be OK with an amusement park having a 90% failure rate when they attest to the safety of their equipment? Should not repeated failures that have a severe impact on people's lives be held to a higher standard than 'oops, my bad bro'? A doctor wouldn't get away with 90% erroneous statements, why do these professionals?