Home Free

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/derrick-hamilton-jailhouse-lawyer

by luckysahaf • 10 years ago

118 33 10 years ago

metalliqaz2• 10 years ago

Louis Scarcella will not face prosecution. God, that makes me sick.

mathattack• 10 years ago

For better or worse, sometimes to change the system you need to avoid vengeance. This is why many terrible dictators are allowed to live in peace in exile.

efaref• 10 years ago

I'm surprised he doesn't live in fear of one of his ex-convicts getting out and going full Dexter on him. Perhaps he really believes his made-up lies.

metalliqaz2• 10 years ago

prosecution != vengeance

JamesSwift• 10 years ago

A prosecution is justice, not vengeance.

pilom• 10 years ago

What can you do? 1. If you are on a jury, remember that it is FAR FAR FAR worse to imprison an innocent person than to let a guilty person free, regardless of the crime. Listen to evidence and make a personal decision about the defendant's guilt with that in mind and don't let any other jurors push you around. 2. Donate to your local chapter of the Innocence Project. 3. Encourage your local DA office to form or expand a version of the Conviction Review Unit mentioned in the article.

kiliantics• 10 years ago

If I were on a jury in the US, I'd vote the defendant not guilty no matter what the evidence. Prison here (and almost everywhere) is a human rights catastrophe and no person deserves it.

crispyambulance2• 10 years ago

Don't worry, plenty of folks already do that in cities which are overflowing with uncontrollable violent crime and have neighborhoods so neglected they look like they've been bombed (eg where I lived for 12 years, Baltimore).

gwkoehler4• 10 years ago

So basically, you believe dangerous people should remain in society? Habitual criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself and your family, and you wouldn't even call the police?

thearn42• 10 years ago

If you are on a jury, remember that it is FAR FAR FAR worse to imprison an innocent person than to let a guilty person free, regardless of the crime

This is one of the best examples of what the stats folks call a type I vs type II error. To understand why this point is correct, simply consider where the actual criminal is in each of the two cases - they're free. When imprisoning an innocent person, it truly is a double error (type I): the innocent person went to jail, and the guilty person STILL went free.

swsieber• 10 years ago

Oh my goodness. The whole type I vs type II actually seems a lot less nonsensical now. Thank you.

spdustin• 10 years ago

I wish jurors would understand their role is to protect the innocent from prosecutorial overreach, not rubber-stamp the prosecution's assertion that a law has been broken. They have more power than the judge (who is really just supposed to enforce procedural rules and maintain order) because they can vote against the law! Imagine, a jury filled with jurors who know that:

A) They can't be punished for their verdict B) They can, and should, consider the rule of law, and not just the veracity of the evidence as is often directed by the judge C) They have the authority to say "okay, the evidence shows the defendant is guilty, but we don't think the law is a just one, so we're going to acquit."

Sometimes, that power is used for good (not convicting those who helped runaway slaves, for example, or not convicting minor drug offenses, keeping our disgustingly overcrowded county jails from adding to their rolls) and sometimes not (the officers acquitted despite video evidence of their beating Rodney King).

It is, however, an exemplar of the checks-and-balances meant to constrain a government that may otherwise overstep its boundaries to violate a citizen's rights. While the rights afforded to a jury are in danger of changing, they haven't changed yet, and potential jurors everywhere in the US should read up more on their rights and responsibilities as a juror.

burkaman• 10 years ago

I don't think it's correct to say jury nullification is part of the designed system of checks and balances. It's really an unintended side effect of the jury system, since jurors have to be immune from any punishment or the system wouldn't work. The intended checks on judicial overreach are the legislative branch repealing laws and impeaching judges, and the executive branch issuing pardons.

I would call jury nullification a form of civil disobedience. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not really operating inside the judicial framework. There's a reason the Supreme Court has consistently held that the defense does not have the right to inform the jury of their right to nullify.

PantaloonFlames2• 10 years ago

It's really an unintended side effect of the jury system, since jurors have to be immune from any punishment or the system wouldn't work.

or in other words, an intended side-effect.

CompelTechnic• 10 years ago

I think I remember reading somewhere that if you demonstrate knowledge about jury nullification during the screening process when you are called for jury duty, you will be screened out as a juror. Which is frickin' ridiculous!

nnf• 10 years ago

The Law You Won't Be Told https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

douche• 10 years ago

It's a great trick to get out of jury duty, though.

crispyambulance2• 10 years ago

You can be screened out for literally ANYTHING during voire dire. It really is up to the lawyers and their prejudices and based entirely on your superficial appearance.

But if you just don't want to serve, don't waste everyone's time-- just say you can't be objective, or better, give a hardship excuse before the court date.

diego_moita• 10 years ago

To me this all speaks "zeitgeist", the mindset of an era.

This was New York in the 80s and 90s, the Rudy Giuliani era, "no broken windows", tough on crime mentality. The town was traumatized by more than a thousand murders every year. Everyone was desperate for convicts, from the voters to the attorneys, the politicians and jurors. No one had patience to "due process". It was a war.

That era has been praised as a victory for law enforcement. Black Lives Matter and others are now showing the real cost of it. No wonder Giuliani freaks out about BLM.

PantaloonFlames2• 10 years ago

"tough on crime" is not the same as "abandon due process".

I challenge your view that jurors and voters would approve of abandoning due process. Sure they wanted convictions of criminals. But not at the cost of faked confessions, lying under oauth, false testimony by law enforcement. It's easy to see that leads to chaos. No one signed up for that, except the watchmen.

zeveb• 10 years ago

Scarcella has never been prosecuted for his alleged malfeasance; the statute of limitations for perjury is five years.

There's the problem. There shouldn't be a statute of limitations on police malfeasance any more than there is one on murder. Police officers who perjure themselves to obtain convictions should be executed.

Mz• 10 years ago

Happily, I found this article more positive than the comments here make it sound. The system is changing. People are being exonerated. These injustices are getting press.

Obviously, it would be nice if injustice never occurred. But injustices do occur and it is far worse when we would rather pretend it doesn't happen than to own up and do what we can to redress them.

Home Free

Related Stories