Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35971935

by darrhiggs • 10 years ago

58 93 10 years ago

bbc.co.uk

gnud• 10 years ago

... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.

AnthonyMouse2• 10 years ago

Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.

cmrx64• 10 years ago

You and GP really need to read the article fully. Even without doing other research, you dismiss the concept based on a false premise that the article itself clarifies..

ithkuil3• 10 years ago

"Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a [...] review of all the evidence."

ZeroGravitas2• 10 years ago

This just makes it worse!

They've publicly admitted that their test will have its result ignored. Any lawyer will quickly learn this and tell their clients, "you might as well, even if you fail, even if you are actually guilty (two entirely unrelated variables), they will still revisit your case".

What a waste of time, money and credibility. And this is the new, improved system. And it truly does seem better than what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.

SideburnsOfDoom2• 10 years ago

though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants

So basically does that mean that although they don't trust the polygraph, they trust the defendant's trust in the polygraph? That seems shaky and subject to change.

pjc504• 10 years ago

The polygraph is a fig leaf for the real process, which is getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake. Without unravelling too much of the process or making anyone fear for their job.

It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.

fsloth• 10 years ago

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?

bitJericho• 10 years ago

Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.

ithkuil3• 10 years ago

[...] After 414 days in the St Clair County jail, he went home.

and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1].

Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation to deserve this treatment?

[1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...

toast0• 10 years ago

414 days in jail awaiting trial doesn't sound like a speedy trial to me, as required (but not defined) in the 6th amendment, either.

coldtea5• 10 years ago

No. It's probably worse.

E.g. you can get life in prison for 3 "strikes", even if it's for something like stealing cookies. You know, the thing Europe derided back in 19th century with Jean Valjean.

A 15 year old can be sentenced to death (and has).

A man that's later proven innocent can rot in jail for decades without much recourse.

The 5% of the world's population have 25% of the world's prisoners.

...

tombrossman3• 10 years ago

This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating.

I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification.

We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.

The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.

specialist2• 10 years ago

Article acknowledges the power of local prosecutors, but not the perverse incentives and lack of counterweights leading to high conviction rates.

pjc504• 10 years ago

Racism and wildly exaggerated fear of crime caused people to effectively demand a justice system that worked like this. So long as it only ruins black lives and those of white people who are easy to dismiss as feckless, the rest of the voters are happy with it.

talmand4• 10 years ago

You're not going back far enough. I would say that throughout much of history there has been similar problems with all justice systems.

Nutmog2• 10 years ago

If it wasn't the US, it would be classified as a human rights violation. This is worse than imprisoning or torturing political prisoners because of the scale of it. At least political prisoners knew they were breaking the law. They're also usually fewer in number except during revolutions/etc.

mason2404• 10 years ago

No, it's a moral panic.

xlm1717• 10 years ago

Not just the justice system, but society in general. If you're arbitrarily targeted by the internet outrage mob for doing or saying something they don't like, your life can be ruined without a fair due process, and the internet does not forgive even if you're innocent.

IIAOPSW• 10 years ago

"Crazy idea: let's not try to put innocent people in jail"

Man whoever thought of that is a fucking radical and needs to be stopped /s

ithkuil3• 10 years ago

"Then there's the fact that he had to pay the county $5 per day while he was on an ankle monitor, plus the cost of a landline to carry the monitor's signal. [...] She says they're still paying their legal bill in instalments."

Just a thought: if you're wrongly convicted, don't you have a possibility to get compensation ? But if you're case is just dismissed before even going to trial, does it mean that the authorities have no obligations to reimburse you any legal expense you might have had while planning for the worse?

ZeroGravitas2• 10 years ago

Depending on who's budget that compensation comes out of, you may well just be giving another financial incentive to put/keep innocent people in jail.

alkonaut• 10 years ago

Next step: let's not try to put so many people in jail even if they are guilty. It obviously costs a lot of money and provably doesn't have any effect on crime (per dollar spent) that is near spending that money in better ways.

ezoe• 10 years ago

Polygraph? What kind of joke is this? Polygraph don't prove or disprove the innocence. It's useless.

Nutmog2• 10 years ago

Nor do eyewitness stories. Nor does recognizing someone from a single photo instead of a proper lineup. These are cases where there's already no reliable evidence in the first place. Really, they should go to court and it would be clear they're not guilty but the polygraph just helps shortcut it. Even better would be no polygraph and just release people when they find they don't have any reliable evidence.

roel_v2• 10 years ago

"but the polygraph just helps shortcut it"

The point is that polygraphs are utter nonsense, at about the same level as reading tea leaves. Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.

realusername• 10 years ago

Same reaction on my case. A Polygraph test (?!?), we are supposed to be in 2016 now ! Is that antique method seriously still used in the US ? It looks like a joke. Better throwing a dice at that point.

mason2404• 10 years ago

Is that antique method seriously still used in the US ?

No, it's not.

DennisP• 10 years ago

From the article:

Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a "de novo" or "from the beginning" review of all the evidence.

So basically, the polygraph is a bluff.

konschubert2• 10 years ago

"That's distinct from 'I didn't get treated fairly' [.. ] It's not, 'Some of the evidence was obtained unlawfully, there was an incorrect ruling by the court, [...] - no, you actually have the wrong person here...they're actually innocent."

So there is a difference between real innocence and "we-are-not-able-to-convict-him-but-we-think-he-is-guilty" innocence? And the prosecutor gets to decide?

Then why even bother with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s

vidarh7• 10 years ago

No, they are saying there is a difference between a defendant saying "I did not do it" and a defendant saying "you didn't have a right to search my house, so the evidence you found there is inadmissible" or similar. E.g. the defendants asserting that they did not do the crime vs. those who assert they should not be convicted of the crime.

konschubert2• 10 years ago

My point is that the distinction between "actually innocent" and "not convicted due to a technicality" basically means that due process is circumvented.

If the police doesn't have the right to search the house but does it anyway, it can now turn a person from "actually innocent" to "technically not convicted". Which is for some purposes halfway to a conviction. This means that police gets rewarded for doing wrongful searches.

known• 10 years ago

Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects;

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

DanielBMarkham• 10 years ago

What a ludicrous idea. Cops break into your house, arrest you for a crime you didn't commit, take months to figure out they blew it -- then what? You get a greeting card in the mail announcing that you're actually innocent? Maybe some flowers?

Sorry, no.

I support the use of force, including lethal force, on violent criminals when the public is in danger. I support the appropriate use of force otherwise. But in return for that support, there has to be some kind of feedback mechanism in place. I understand that workplace accidents happen, and nobody's perfect. But ruining somebody's life isn't the same as an IT worker forgetting his security badge one day. "Actual innocence" looks like a gimmick to make the poor rube you screwed over feel better, not evolve the system to a better state.

As bad as these stories are, my concern is for the next victim -- and the next thousand after that.

m_eiman2• 10 years ago

It appears from the article that if you're wrongfully jailed in the US, you're not automatically entitled to compensation for lost income and other expenses caused by the jail time. Surely this must be incorrect?

mirimir4• 10 years ago

Nope, that's just how it is.

m_eiman2• 10 years ago

That's… crazy.

In Sweden you're entitled to compensation for:

* suffering (starting by default at $3700 for the first month, down to half per month after six months)

* loss of income (including sick pay, unemployment pay, etc)

* expenses (rent not compensated)

Source in Swedish: http://www.jk.se/ansokan/frihetsberovande/

In some extreme cases people who have been wrongfully convicted of e.g. murder and served many years in jail have received up to about two million USD.

anexprogrammer• 10 years ago

So someone's life gets ruined, job and home lost, spends time in prison due to a mistake or worse, and gets no comeback at all?

How is that not a major issue for a media campaign or politicians of one flavour or another?

Cozumel• 10 years ago

Only in America would 'actual innocence' be treated as a novelty!!

dsr_• 10 years ago

Underlying causes include: in many US states, the District Attorney (chief prosecutor) is an elected position. In many US states, local judges are elected.

A major winning strategy of the last hundred years or so is the "law and order" platform, in which the politicians exploit racism, classism and even ageism to provoke fear of violent crime. The politician promises that they will increase arrest rates, win trials, and impose higher sentences in order to protect the [white, middle-class, elderly] citizens from the [black or hispanic, lower-class, teenaged] hoodlums.

And they win, and they put these policies into effect.

Do they work? Well, they work at getting the politicians re-elected, and that's the only real success criterion.

It turns out that if you ask Americans what to do about most issues, and you phrase the questions in non-aggressive ways, and you invoke empathy -- they mostly agree that treating people kindly is important. That innocence should be an absolute defense. That everyone should get necessary health care, and nobody should starve or be cripplingly poor. That people should work if they can, but not be abandoned if they can't.

But those positions are not very effective for the media and politicians, so they go with what works for their goals instead.

talmand4• 10 years ago

Not that I disagree, but there are examples of the opposite sentiment being used by elected officials during campaigns to get certain demographics to vote for them.

Could 'actual innocence' save the broken US justice system?

Related Stories