Innocence is not enough to get you out of prison.

[Ideologue]

Okay, now this isn't a trick, but a genuine question, so don't go "done" and cut me off.  But why?

Because pressure to recant undermines the credibility of the recantation.

What's the purpose of the "but" before the "why?"

Oh.  That's an artifact of my odd writing.  Originally I wrote," Okay, but why?"  Then I thought you might take offense or something or that I was trying to to set you up, so I added in the other stuff.

I suppose it may weaken the recantation but it totally destroys the evidence used against the defendant.  The witness is no longer credible and in good faith it really shouldn't be used as evidence if the guy tells two different stories.  The defense need not prove a case, it merely needs to prevent the prosecution from proving theirs.

Not to prove actual innocence.  The standard of proof is different than in the original trial.  "No reasonable trier of fact would have convicted" is a lot harder to meet than "a reasonable doubt exists."  Whether that's a good thing or not is the debate.  It probably isn't, but I think it's totally rad millions of dollars and thousands of hours were spent to arrive at the same result doing nothing would have.

Of course, it sure would be useful if we had some kind of objective record of criminal events, wouldn't it?  Why, that would solve pretty much every problem with our "fucked up" legal system, wouldn't it?

[Syt]

I've recently read on the well known, peer reviewed legal website "Cracked.com" that many U.S. states charge defendants with the costs of their legal proceedings (like assigning a public defender), even if you're found innocent.

So you might get charged with a crime, are cleared of charges but might still go to prison for failure to (be able to) pay your bills from the case.

Is that a thing? Because it seems, uhm, odd.

[The Larch]

The well esteemed scholar John Oliver has also chimed in recently about the issue of outrageous municipal fines and abusive payment schemes. If anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto

[dps]

This country's legal system is fucked up.

But is it fucked up in the way the Founders intended?

Arguably, yeah, when it comes to appeals courts reviewing criminal trials.


This is an over-simplification, but basically, appeals courts, and especially the US Supreme Court, don't try questions of fact--they try questions of law.  Whether or not an accused person is guilty of the crimes they are charged with is a question of fact, and that's supposed to be tried by a jury, not a panel of appeal judges.  Even when a conviction is overturned, very rarely does an appeals court actually say that the defendant was innocent;  instead, they remand the case to a lower court for it to be retried.  Sometimes, at that point, the state decides not to continue the prosecution, depending on why the appeal was sustained, among other factors.

The real question isn't, "Should being innocent be enough to avoid being punished for a crime?", it's, "Under what conditions does new evidence require a case to be retried or a conviction to be set aside?".  But of course, arguing that it's the former makes for more sensational headlines.

[Berkut]

Yeah, the entire thing is kind of bullshit.

"Being innocent"? Who determines that? Isn't that what a trial is for, with a system that presumably heavily favors the defense?

Assuming that system is working, it should be very difficult to argue that a new determination should be made absent being able to show that the system was not properly executed (which would then call into question the validity of the original process). Which is what we have now, and in theory is exactly how the system *should* work.

The alternative is that no case is ever closed - you can always claim that "Hey, I was found guilty, but really I am innocent! Re-open the trial!" and of course why wouldn't any defendant do exactly that, all the time?

Does this mean that innocent people will be wrongly found guilty.

Yes. But we knew that was possible all along, and will in fact always be the case in any system, absent simply never trying anyone for a crime.

[viper37]

absent simply never trying anyone for a crime.

Let's make a compromise.  Once a year, no crime is punished.  It seems to work well...

[crazy canuck]

"Being innocent"? Who determines that? Isn't that what a trial is for, with a system that presumably heavily favors the defense?

The assumption is becoming questionable.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, the entire thing is kind of bullshit.

"Being innocent"? Who determines that?

Truth.

Isn't that what a trial is for, with a system that presumably heavily favors the defense?

How would one conclude that the system "heavily favors the defense"?  The objective evidence -- conviction rates -- says otherwise.

The alternative is that no case is ever closed - you can always claim that "Hey, I was found guilty, but really I am innocent! Re-open the trial!" and of course why wouldn't any defendant do exactly that, all the time?

Clearly that is not "the" alternative, only the alternative if one insists on falling all the way down the slippery slope and not getting up.  There are alternatives between having he finality of jury verdicts be the most absolute and unquestioned principle of all Creation on the one hand and having it be irrelevant on the other.  There is quite a large middle territory there to stake an alternative position.

[Neil]

Yeah, the entire thing is kind of bullshit.

"Being innocent"? Who determines that?

Truth.

Truth has nothing to do with the law.  You're a lawyer, you know how evil your work is.

Isn't that what a trial is for, with a system that presumably heavily favors the defense?

How would one conclude that the system "heavily favors the defense"?  The objective evidence -- conviction rates -- says otherwise.

There is the presumption of innocence and there is reasonable doubt on their side.  Conviction rates isn't necessarily evidence of which side is favoured.  After all, if prosecutors are bringing strong cases against guilty defendants, you would expect a high conviction rate no matter who the system favours.  Those who aren't guilty aren't charged and are merely robbed by the police.

The alternative is that no case is ever closed - you can always claim that "Hey, I was found guilty, but really I am innocent! Re-open the trial!" and of course why wouldn't any defendant do exactly that, all the time?

Clearly that is not "the" alternative, only the alternative if one insists on falling all the way down the slippery slope and not getting up.  There are alternatives between having he finality of jury verdicts be the most absolute and unquestioned principle of all Creation on the one hand and having it be irrelevant on the other.  There is quite a large middle territory there to stake an alternative position.

I was under the impression it was always possible for cases to be reopened, but that it was at the discretion of the court?

[Berkut]

Yeah, the entire thing is kind of bullshit.

"Being innocent"? Who determines that?

Truth.

Truth cannot determine anything, since it is not an actual process or person capable of making judgement.

That is a pretty huge cop out, and not really in character for you.

Isn't that what a trial is for, with a system that presumably heavily favors the defense?

How would one conclude that the system "heavily favors the defense"?  The objective evidence -- conviction rates -- says otherwise.

Again, a cop out. The process favors the defense enough that most cases never make it to trial, and for the most part only those that have significant evidence to overcome the presumptive hurdles are even tried. The "objective evidence" is that very, very few innocent people are wrongly convicted.

Even those who are "wrongly convicted" are mostly actually guilty of their crimes (in the non-legal sense), I suspect.

The alternative is that no case is ever closed - you can always claim that "Hey, I was found guilty, but really I am innocent! Re-open the trial!" and of course why wouldn't any defendant do exactly that, all the time?

Clearly that is not "the" alternative, only the alternative if one insists on falling all the way down the slippery slope and not getting up.  There are alternatives between having he finality of jury verdicts be the most absolute and unquestioned principle of all Creation on the one hand and having it be irrelevant on the other.  There is quite a large middle territory there to stake an alternative position.

Don't we live in that alternative right now?

[Valmy]

The "objective evidence" is that very, very few innocent people are wrongly convicted.

I don't really see what that has to do with anything. Because it is rare as a percentage of total convictions we should never consider new evidence that comes to light later unless there was a mistrial of some kind?

Even those who are "wrongly convicted" are mostly actually guilty of their crimes (in the non-legal sense), I suspect.

Ok so what about are not part of this 'mostly actually guilty'? Do people not matter just because there are few of them? That strikes me as a cop out.

Don't we live in that alternative right now?

A world where it is impossible for new evidence to be considered without some sort of legal technicality? That sounds like a dystopia to me.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan, can you do me a favor and lay out what this ruling actually does?

[crazy canuck]

Even those who are "wrongly convicted" are mostly actually guilty of their crimes (in the non-legal sense), I suspect.

At least you are not shy about showing your bias.

[DGuller]

How would one conclude that the system "heavily favors the defense"?  The objective evidence -- conviction rates -- says otherwise.

Objection!  Counselor is bullshitting with statistics.  These statistics have big ass selection bias at work.

[DGuller]

The "objective evidence" is that very, very few innocent people are wrongly convicted.

In what way is this objective, or even evidence at all?  Isn't that just your assertion?