4 ms·

How does this not get all FBI testimony thrown out by judges? If there is an organisation who pays its employees to lie in court, and they are known to suffer n

by dmurray 12y ago

How does this not get all FBI testimony thrown out by judges? If there is an organisation who pays its employees to lie in court, and they are known to suffer no ill consequences for lying, all of those employees' testimony should be considered worthless.

themartorana 12y ago
I fear that even with this gross miscarriage of justice over decades, people may not be granted a retrial. It's the entire reason the Innocence Project exists. http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/improve-the-law/fact-sheets/access-to-post-conviction-dna-testing http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/improve-the-la... I've never understood how the possibility of new evidence doesn't immediately reopen a case (in general). I thought we wanted real, actual, blind justice based only on facts and absolutely nothing else. It turns out it is rarely that simple.
- Retric 12y ago
  $
  - johndevor 12y ago
    This is a valid point. Those in law enforcement want to rise up the ranks. Closing cases quickly and getting promoted does come with a nice raise.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      See also: The prosecutor problem.
- MCRed 12y ago
  All people have an agenda. Their agenda generally favors themselves in some way or another. We, as the potential victims of injustice want a real, actual, scientific, blind justice system that presumes innocence and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, checked by a jury that can nullify laws, and the like. Politicians want to be "tough on crime" so they appoint judges and prosecutors who get convictions. Judges want to be re-elected because they are "tough on crime" (in places where judges are elected) Prosecutors want to have a successful career so they will do anything they can get away with to get a conviction. The police want to have the case be off their hands and to be "closed" so that their stats look good because it's good for their career because the Mayor wants to be "tough on crime" and so the police find the first plausible suspect and try to build a case. All these organizations are in cahoots, literally, and so no prosecutor is going to indict a judge or cop unless they absolutely have to. So long as the public can be lead to believe they live in a society with the "rule of law" not the "rule of man" then nothing more needs to be done. And the public is very gullible! (Especially when you control the schools and you raise them to be gullible.) IT's not that these people are evil. ITs that they are self interested. The founding fathers attempted to put in checks and balances and they did a damn good job. But over the past 200 years, they have been systematically eroded.
  - wongarsu 12y ago
    But there are far more potential victims of injustice than politicians, judges etc. Since we're talking about a democracy here, it should be possible for this majority to create an environment where the selfish interests of politicians and judges align with the need to protect innocents. Yet this same democracy creates an environment where protecting innocents puts officials at a disadvantage. Things are clearly very backwards.
- task_queue 12y ago
  Conviction rates matter. Also the justice system "congestion" that judges and prosecutors are always pointing to as an excuse for their failure to uphold real justice.
ars 12y ago
They didn't lie, they believed that the hair really matched. The problem was that the method they used, i.e. how they were taught, was incorrect. So it's not so easy to throw it out as you might suspect - it's the job of jury to decide if the evidence is "good" (they hear lots of evidence, much of it conflicting). True, the jury relied on false information on what counts as good. But because the jury accepted the evidence undoing that is not as simple as you think unless there are specific laws about it.
- Riseed 12y ago
  Perhaps we are lacking in specific laws about reopening such cases (I do not claim to know). However, I think the lack of specific laws (and/or the difficulty in creating them) is one reason there exists a general law about it: clemency.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Doesn't seem like they lived up to the "beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt" standard in the methodology, whether they believed they were telling the truth or not. The methods could not support the level of certainty they were obligated to obtain.
scotty79 12y ago
Too big to fail?

by dmurray 12y ago

themartorana 12y ago

I fear that even with this gross miscarriage of justice over decades, people may not be granted a retrial. It's the entire reason the Innocence Project exists. http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/improve-the-law/fact-sheets/access-to-post-conviction-dna-testing http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/improve-the-la... I've never understood how the possibility of new evidence doesn't immediately reopen a case (in general). I thought we wanted real, actual, blind justice based only on facts and absolutely nothing else. It turns out it is rarely that simple.

Retric 12y ago
$
- johndevor 12y ago
  This is a valid point. Those in law enforcement want to rise up the ranks. Closing cases quickly and getting promoted does come with a nice raise.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    See also: The prosecutor problem.
MCRed 12y ago
All people have an agenda. Their agenda generally favors themselves in some way or another. We, as the potential victims of injustice want a real, actual, scientific, blind justice system that presumes innocence and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, checked by a jury that can nullify laws, and the like. Politicians want to be "tough on crime" so they appoint judges and prosecutors who get convictions. Judges want to be re-elected because they are "tough on crime" (in places where judges are elected) Prosecutors want to have a successful career so they will do anything they can get away with to get a conviction. The police want to have the case be off their hands and to be "closed" so that their stats look good because it's good for their career because the Mayor wants to be "tough on crime" and so the police find the first plausible suspect and try to build a case. All these organizations are in cahoots, literally, and so no prosecutor is going to indict a judge or cop unless they absolutely have to. So long as the public can be lead to believe they live in a society with the "rule of law" not the "rule of man" then nothing more needs to be done. And the public is very gullible! (Especially when you control the schools and you raise them to be gullible.) IT's not that these people are evil. ITs that they are self interested. The founding fathers attempted to put in checks and balances and they did a damn good job. But over the past 200 years, they have been systematically eroded.
- wongarsu 12y ago
  But there are far more potential victims of injustice than politicians, judges etc. Since we're talking about a democracy here, it should be possible for this majority to create an environment where the selfish interests of politicians and judges align with the need to protect innocents. Yet this same democracy creates an environment where protecting innocents puts officials at a disadvantage. Things are clearly very backwards.
task_queue 12y ago
Conviction rates matter. Also the justice system "congestion" that judges and prosecutors are always pointing to as an excuse for their failure to uphold real justice.

ars 12y ago

They didn't lie, they believed that the hair really matched. The problem was that the method they used, i.e. how they were taught, was incorrect. So it's not so easy to throw it out as you might suspect - it's the job of jury to decide if the evidence is "good" (they hear lots of evidence, much of it conflicting). True, the jury relied on false information on what counts as good. But because the jury accepted the evidence undoing that is not as simple as you think unless there are specific laws about it.

Riseed 12y ago
Perhaps we are lacking in specific laws about reopening such cases (I do not claim to know). However, I think the lack of specific laws (and/or the difficulty in creating them) is one reason there exists a general law about it: clemency.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
Doesn't seem like they lived up to the "beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt" standard in the methodology, whether they believed they were telling the truth or not. The methods could not support the level of certainty they were obligated to obtain.

scotty79 12y ago

Too big to fail?