5 ms·

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 An

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.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      I agree; but our criminal justice system operates on the theory of deterrence. I find it particularly ironic that you speak up in defense of a prosecutor who builds a career based upon his (unjust) application of deterrence. Aside from an interest in Justice, why would anyone defend Ken Anderson's behavior? Convicting innocent people of crimes is only in the interests of prosecutors and criminals. Conversely, every citizen is at risk from malicious wrongful prosecution.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring race into this. I'll concede to you that some people in the South are racist. I never said otherwise. Nor have I or anyone else that I've noticed ITT suggested that lynch-mob style justice is what Ken Anderson deserves. What people have said is that Ken Anderson's crimes are serious, and deserving of more than it appears he will get. To use a prosecutor's rhetoric, a deterrent is needed. I think what they (some people from the South) believe is that police, prosecutors, and judges are well-meaning professionals and that they conduct their duty with the intention to "do what is right" and with some degree of professionalism. When a random citizen calls for the death penalty for some accused individual, they are always doing so with the caveat that the accused is actually guilty of the crime. They are saying "baby raping murders need to die" not necessarily that "smelly bums need to get framed up" or in the case of Morton "innocent fathers". What person (besides policemen and prosecutors) wants an innocent man convicted? The problem is not human nature (well, maybe it is, but that's not a problem we can reliably solve). The problem is that prosecutors, judges, and cops are themselves human, and that there is little to safeguard us all from their mistakes, and even worse, they are incentive-ized to make these types of mistakes.

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.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    I agree; but our criminal justice system operates on the theory of deterrence. I find it particularly ironic that you speak up in defense of a prosecutor who builds a career based upon his (unjust) application of deterrence. Aside from an interest in Justice, why would anyone defend Ken Anderson's behavior? Convicting innocent people of crimes is only in the interests of prosecutors and criminals. Conversely, every citizen is at risk from malicious wrongful prosecution.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring race into this. I'll concede to you that some people in the South are racist. I never said otherwise. Nor have I or anyone else that I've noticed ITT suggested that lynch-mob style justice is what Ken Anderson deserves. What people have said is that Ken Anderson's crimes are serious, and deserving of more than it appears he will get. To use a prosecutor's rhetoric, a deterrent is needed. I think what they (some people from the South) believe is that police, prosecutors, and judges are well-meaning professionals and that they conduct their duty with the intention to "do what is right" and with some degree of professionalism. When a random citizen calls for the death penalty for some accused individual, they are always doing so with the caveat that the accused is actually guilty of the crime. They are saying "baby raping murders need to die" not necessarily that "smelly bums need to get framed up" or in the case of Morton "innocent fathers". What person (besides policemen and prosecutors) wants an innocent man convicted? The problem is not human nature (well, maybe it is, but that's not a problem we can reliably solve). The problem is that prosecutors, judges, and cops are themselves human, and that there is little to safeguard us all from their mistakes, and even worse, they are incentive-ized to make these types of mistakes.