10 ms·

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

58 points by darrhiggs 10y ago

gnud 10y 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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.
  - cmrx64 10y 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..
    - arethuza 10y ago
      "they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants." So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty? Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
      - kitd 10y ago
        Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous. However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
        arethuza 10y ago
        You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?
        specialist 10y ago
        I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.
        nekopa 10y ago
        Except for the one guilty party who somehow ended up uncovering more evidence that they did the crime.
    - cafard 10y ago
      William Casey, who was Reagan's first CIA director, told journalists that passing polygraphs is an easily learned skill. Some may not need the training: if there is no psychological stress involved in lying, why should there be physical symptoms?
      - vidarh 10y ago
        Which is still irrelevant here. The willingness - or not - to take the test acts as a filter. Beyond that, a case review is carried out. If the case review finds they have sufficient evidence, the test does not matter. If the case review finds they have insufficient evidence, then you should not have been charged in the first place.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      In other words it's the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of trial by fire. Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor. Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)
- ithkuil 10y 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."
  - ZeroGravitas 10y 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.
    - morgante 10y ago
      Presumably if you're actually guilty you don't want them going back and collecting more evidence on your case.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        Maybe - they do actually mention one case in the article where the review yielded more evidence and made their case stronger.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 10y 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.
    - 10y ago
- pjc50 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.
- ithkuil 10y 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-charges-dropped-in-east-st-louis-case/article_1ace22ff-c799-5990-98c2-bc468d227915.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...
  - toast0 10y 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.
    - drjesusphd 10y ago
      Defendants are often advised to waive their right to a speedy trial to better prepare a case.
- coldtea 10y 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. ...
IIAOPSW 10y 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
- ithkuil 10y 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?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
Polygraph? What kind of joke is this? Polygraph don't prove or disprove the innocence. It's useless.
- Nutmog 10y 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_v 10y 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.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      > Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review. > No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design. In an ideal world, no. But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work.
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        If a polygraph is a filter that just doesn't work, then it's a total waste of time as it won't work as a filter, or anything else for that matter.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
konschubert 10y 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
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 10y 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.
  - konschubert 10y 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 10y ago
Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects; http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
DanielBMarkham 10y 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_eiman 10y 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?
- mirimir 10y ago
  Nope, that's just how it is.
  - m_eiman 10y 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/ 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 10y 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?
    - thirdsun 10y ago
      Particularly surprising since the US is such a lawsuit-happy country where it seems you can expect some form of compensation even for borderline ridiculous issues. Coffee too hot? Jackpot! Life severely ruined by being wrongfully convicted? Well, sorry about that.
      - talmand 10y ago
        I believe there is some sort of automatic compensation for being wrongfully convicted in many areas, depending on the court that did the conviction. Being wrongfully jailed before conviction is a different matter.
Cozumel 10y ago
Only in America would 'actual innocence' be treated as a novelty!!
dsr_ 10y 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.
- talmand 10y 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.

58 points by darrhiggs 10y ago

gnud 10y 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.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.
- cmrx64 10y 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..
  - arethuza 10y ago
    "they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants." So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty? Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
    - kitd 10y ago
      Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous. However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
      - arethuza 10y ago
        You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?
        specialist 10y ago
        I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.
        nekopa 10y ago
        Except for the one guilty party who somehow ended up uncovering more evidence that they did the crime.
  - cafard 10y ago
    William Casey, who was Reagan's first CIA director, told journalists that passing polygraphs is an easily learned skill. Some may not need the training: if there is no psychological stress involved in lying, why should there be physical symptoms?
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Which is still irrelevant here. The willingness - or not - to take the test acts as a filter. Beyond that, a case review is carried out. If the case review finds they have sufficient evidence, the test does not matter. If the case review finds they have insufficient evidence, then you should not have been charged in the first place.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    In other words it's the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of trial by fire. Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor. Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)
ithkuil 10y 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."
- ZeroGravitas 10y 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.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Presumably if you're actually guilty you don't want them going back and collecting more evidence on your case.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Maybe - they do actually mention one case in the article where the review yielded more evidence and made their case stronger.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y 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.
  - 10y ago
pjc50 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.
ithkuil 10y 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-charges-dropped-in-east-st-louis-case/article_1ace22ff-c799-5990-98c2-bc468d227915.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...
- toast0 10y 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.
  - drjesusphd 10y ago
    Defendants are often advised to waive their right to a speedy trial to better prepare a case.
coldtea 10y 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. ...

IIAOPSW 10y 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

ithkuil 10y 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?
- ZeroGravitas 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago

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

Nutmog 10y 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_v 10y 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.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    > Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review. > No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design. In an ideal world, no. But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work.
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      If a polygraph is a filter that just doesn't work, then it's a total waste of time as it won't work as a filter, or anything else for that matter.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

konschubert 10y 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

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 10y 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.
- konschubert 10y 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 10y ago

Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects; http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

DanielBMarkham 10y 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_eiman 10y 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?

mirimir 10y ago
Nope, that's just how it is.
- m_eiman 10y 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/ 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 10y 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?
  - thirdsun 10y ago
    Particularly surprising since the US is such a lawsuit-happy country where it seems you can expect some form of compensation even for borderline ridiculous issues. Coffee too hot? Jackpot! Life severely ruined by being wrongfully convicted? Well, sorry about that.
    - talmand 10y ago
      I believe there is some sort of automatic compensation for being wrongfully convicted in many areas, depending on the court that did the conviction. Being wrongfully jailed before conviction is a different matter.

Cozumel 10y ago

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

dsr_ 10y 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.

talmand 10y 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.