4 ms·

Great. Now you know exactly how the jury felt when they ruined this persons life based on a complete lack of evidence that he committed a crime (never mind the

by brazzy 13y ago

Great. Now you know exactly how the jury felt when they ruined this persons life based on a complete lack of evidence that he committed a crime (never mind the withheld evidence against it). Quoth the article: "We all felt so strongly that this was justice for Christine and that we were doing the right thing," says Mark Landrum, who was the jury foreman. Righteous fury is the worst enemy of justice.

nate_meurer 13y ago
I agree with your last sentence, but I think it's a bit out of place here. The OP didn't call for a disproportionate sentence. Prosecutor Ken Anderson deliberate falsified a case that cost Mr Morton 25 years of his life. A 25 year sentence for Ken Anderson would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
- brazzy 13y ago
  The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get. It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to want revenge, believing it to be justice.
  - girvo 13y ago
    People in power over the rest of us should be held to higher standards. That should be the trade-off. As it stands, it is not the case, and there are few consequences for actions like these. That should change. Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      > Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else. This is something that should be told again and again and again to the juries in murder trials. I think it's just as much a scandal that the jury convicted Morton without substantial evidence as that the prosecutor withheld potentially exonerating evidence.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    > "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably." That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case. I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.
      - nate_meurer 13y ago
        I'm very much against "eye for an eye" as a general principle, but in this particular case -- in the inner workings of our judicial system -- I think it has utility. > "Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences..." That is indeed part of the point! If we can agree that sentencing has spiraled out of control in this country (and I suspect we can), then perhaps a strong disincentive for misbehavior within the system would be beneficial?
- viraptor 13y ago
  Since when is it about revenge rather than education when you put people in jail? Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference? It sounds like you're going for the eye for an eye solution here.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    This is not about revenge for me. > "Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference?" And do you think 10 days in prison is going to make a difference? To answer your question, yes, I believe serious consequences for prosecutorial misconduct will make a difference. Making the sentence for malicious prosecution comparable to the sentence suffered by the victim is simply a guideline that I personally would find reasonable. EDIT: I should have said "I would find reasonable in this particular case, i.e., that of prosecutorial misconduct". I agree that talionic justice (eye-for-an-eye) leads to gross dysfunctional if put to general use. But I'm not convinced that makes it inappropriate in all cases.
    - viraptor 13y ago
      No, but I really don't think anything over 10 years really can influence the person's behaviour. It's a 20->30, or 30->40 years jump - not only you took a lot of their life and broke most of their outside connections, but also the natural character change takes place. Holding someone for 20+ years would make them both useless to the society afterwards and unlikely to be able to live on their own. I'll look later to see if anyone analysed this in real cases, but my intuition is that there's some limit where it doesn't make a difference anymore whether you add more years - only guarantees that the jailed person has no way to go back to any kind of reasonable life afterwards.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
There appears to be no shortage of evidence that Ken Anderson is a criminal. "The State Bar’s Commission for Lawyer Discipline wrote in its court filing that Anderson knew of the evidence and withheld it. The filing also alleges that Anderson made a false statement to the court when he told the judge he had no evidence that could be favorable to Morton’s claims of innocence."[1] [1] http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disciplinary-action-against-anders/ http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disci...
- brazzy 13y ago
  I'm sure that those who lynched some black dude whenever a white woman was murdered in the 1900s South also often sincerely believed there was no shortage of evidence. The problem is that people let outrage over the seriousness of the crime guide both their evaluation of evidence and demand for punishment. Their want their offended sense of justice to be assuaged, but this leads to greater and greater injustice, as people are wrongly convicted and sentences climb ever higher.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Yes, that happens. This is really not that case. The prosecutors actions lead to someone else getting killed. These are known facts, and not really up for debate. More to the point, without consequences for their actions, prosecutors have an incentive to do this stuff.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      Then that incentive should perhaps be removed rather than trying to add a negative incentive to prevent its abuse. There should be a better way to choose prosecutors for promotion than winning high-profile trials.
      - girvo 13y ago
        I agree with you. The problem is, that is something that will take a massive coordinated effort and systemic change, and frankly will have huge push-back by the prosecutors themselves (everyone likes easy actionable metrics)... It also assumes that all prosecutors are good, which we can never assume of everyone in a profession. So, I think both tactics are required.
girvo 13y ago
I'm not angry, I'm upset. More to the point, the prosecutor is guilty, which is why he received 10 days in jail. I'm expressing that that should have been a larger punishment for the anguish he caused, and admitted to. On top of that, this time they have a stack of evidence, enough to exonerate someone, and the prosecutors actions got another person killed. Very different circumstances, in my opinion. I do agree with your final sentence, however.
- brazzy 13y ago
  I agree that 10 days is too litte, but note that it's part of a deal which cost him his law license and highly prestigious (and paid) job as a judge. That's the real punishment.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Agreed with you there; I only hope that this continues moving forward. It's fairly unprecedented that a prosecutor would have this happen. It's not really about punishment as it is disincentive... I hope its enough to stop future Mr Moretons from having their lives ruined.

by brazzy 13y ago

nate_meurer 13y ago

I agree with your last sentence, but I think it's a bit out of place here. The OP didn't call for a disproportionate sentence. Prosecutor Ken Anderson deliberate falsified a case that cost Mr Morton 25 years of his life. A 25 year sentence for Ken Anderson would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

brazzy 13y ago
The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get. It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to want revenge, believing it to be justice.
- girvo 13y ago
  People in power over the rest of us should be held to higher standards. That should be the trade-off. As it stands, it is not the case, and there are few consequences for actions like these. That should change. Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    > Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else. This is something that should be told again and again and again to the juries in murder trials. I think it's just as much a scandal that the jury convicted Morton without substantial evidence as that the prosecutor withheld potentially exonerating evidence.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  > "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably." That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case. I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.
    - nate_meurer 13y ago
      I'm very much against "eye for an eye" as a general principle, but in this particular case -- in the inner workings of our judicial system -- I think it has utility. > "Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences..." That is indeed part of the point! If we can agree that sentencing has spiraled out of control in this country (and I suspect we can), then perhaps a strong disincentive for misbehavior within the system would be beneficial?
viraptor 13y ago
Since when is it about revenge rather than education when you put people in jail? Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference? It sounds like you're going for the eye for an eye solution here.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  This is not about revenge for me. > "Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference?" And do you think 10 days in prison is going to make a difference? To answer your question, yes, I believe serious consequences for prosecutorial misconduct will make a difference. Making the sentence for malicious prosecution comparable to the sentence suffered by the victim is simply a guideline that I personally would find reasonable. EDIT: I should have said "I would find reasonable in this particular case, i.e., that of prosecutorial misconduct". I agree that talionic justice (eye-for-an-eye) leads to gross dysfunctional if put to general use. But I'm not convinced that makes it inappropriate in all cases.
  - viraptor 13y ago
    No, but I really don't think anything over 10 years really can influence the person's behaviour. It's a 20->30, or 30->40 years jump - not only you took a lot of their life and broke most of their outside connections, but also the natural character change takes place. Holding someone for 20+ years would make them both useless to the society afterwards and unlikely to be able to live on their own. I'll look later to see if anyone analysed this in real cases, but my intuition is that there's some limit where it doesn't make a difference anymore whether you add more years - only guarantees that the jailed person has no way to go back to any kind of reasonable life afterwards.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

There appears to be no shortage of evidence that Ken Anderson is a criminal. "The State Bar’s Commission for Lawyer Discipline wrote in its court filing that Anderson knew of the evidence and withheld it. The filing also alleges that Anderson made a false statement to the court when he told the judge he had no evidence that could be favorable to Morton’s claims of innocence."[1] [1] http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disciplinary-action-against-anders/ http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disci...

brazzy 13y ago
I'm sure that those who lynched some black dude whenever a white woman was murdered in the 1900s South also often sincerely believed there was no shortage of evidence. The problem is that people let outrage over the seriousness of the crime guide both their evaluation of evidence and demand for punishment. Their want their offended sense of justice to be assuaged, but this leads to greater and greater injustice, as people are wrongly convicted and sentences climb ever higher.
- girvo 13y ago
  Yes, that happens. This is really not that case. The prosecutors actions lead to someone else getting killed. These are known facts, and not really up for debate. More to the point, without consequences for their actions, prosecutors have an incentive to do this stuff.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    Then that incentive should perhaps be removed rather than trying to add a negative incentive to prevent its abuse. There should be a better way to choose prosecutors for promotion than winning high-profile trials.
    - girvo 13y ago
      I agree with you. The problem is, that is something that will take a massive coordinated effort and systemic change, and frankly will have huge push-back by the prosecutors themselves (everyone likes easy actionable metrics)... It also assumes that all prosecutors are good, which we can never assume of everyone in a profession. So, I think both tactics are required.

girvo 13y ago

I'm not angry, I'm upset. More to the point, the prosecutor is guilty, which is why he received 10 days in jail. I'm expressing that that should have been a larger punishment for the anguish he caused, and admitted to. On top of that, this time they have a stack of evidence, enough to exonerate someone, and the prosecutors actions got another person killed. Very different circumstances, in my opinion. I do agree with your final sentence, however.

brazzy 13y ago
I agree that 10 days is too litte, but note that it's part of a deal which cost him his law license and highly prestigious (and paid) job as a judge. That's the real punishment.
- girvo 13y ago
  Agreed with you there; I only hope that this continues moving forward. It's fairly unprecedented that a prosecutor would have this happen. It's not really about punishment as it is disincentive... I hope its enough to stop future Mr Moretons from having their lives ruined.