Innocence is not enough to get you out of prison.

[Berkut]

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?

How is an actual count of actual incidences of the number of time that actual people are shown to have been convicted while they actually are provably innocent not objective?

The term "very few" is of course subjective, since it is dependent on what some person considers to be "very few" but since we are comparing the number of innocent people convicted to the number of guilty people convicted, I am rather confident that the comparison warrants the term "very few".

[crazy canuck]

How do you know that very few innocent people are convicted regardless of how one might define "very few"?

[DGuller]

How is an actual count of actual incidences of the number of time that actual people are shown to have been convicted while they actually are provably innocent not objective?

The answer is right there in your question.  The keyword is "shown".  We have no idea how many actually innocent people are convicted, we only know how many people have been shown to be wrongfully convicted.  It's very hard to know what percentage of truly wrongfully convicted number the latter figure is, but it can conceivably be quite small if even actually being innocent doesn't rise to the status of "being shown to be innocent".

[Berkut]

How do you know that very few innocent people are convicted regardless of how one might define "very few"?

The articles that I've seen written on the subject have numbers in the low hundreds of reported cases over several decades. That seems to be very small numbers compared to the number of convictions in question.

The system itself is very consciously defined to include a presumption of innocence that must be overcome. If in fact that system has failed and there are lots more than the presumed very low percentages, then  I think it is on those claiming that the system is not working as intended to show that.

Mostly these articles just cite particular examples, which while horrible for the particular people involved, don't actually evidence a systemic problem.

So I guess I will turn it around - how do you know that more than "very few" innocent people are convicted? Do you have some actual statistics?

[Berkut]

How is an actual count of actual incidences of the number of time that actual people are shown to have been convicted while they actually are provably innocent not objective?

The answer is right there in your question.  The keyword is "shown".  We have no idea how many actually innocent people are convicted, we only know how many people have been shown to be wrongfully convicted.

True of course, in that it is possible that *any* person convicted might be wrongfully convicted.

However, given a presumably transparent judicial process with adequate checks and balances, if in fact there is a problem that the system is not working, and lots of people are being convicted who should not be, then it should be the case that either,

A) Advocates can show copious examples of where the process failed and resulted in lots of wrongful convictions, and show the stats to evidence that beyond anecdotes, or
B) Advoccates should be able to show that the process is NOT transparent and in fact there is serious questions about the validity of prosecution because the process itself is hidden and not subject to fair scrutiny.

I find the argument that the process is transparent, but there are lots of "hidden" unjust outcomes rather unconvincing. Yes, they will happen since we know the process is imperfect, but they should be rare. As far as I can tell, they are in fact very rare, and have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

In other words, I suspect our system actually works "fine" in that it very rarely results in unjust outcomes for the accused. That it does in fact *sometimes* result in unjust outcomes is inevitable. However, is is also the case, and this can be estimated as well, that we have a huge number of people who ought to be convicted who are not. And we are largely accepting of that because we would much rather let the proverbial 9 guilty men free rather than risk putting the 1 innocent man in jail.

I also suspect that attempts to try to make the incidence of unjust outcomes go from some very, very small number to small even smaller number, will inevitable result in more guilty people being not convicted. I don't think it is likely to be possible to decrease the number of innocent people being jailed without vastly increasing the number of guilty people not being convicted.

If, of course, someone can suggest a reform to the system to allow fewer innocent people being jailed while at the same time NOT allowing more guilty people to get off, everyone is all for that, I am sure.

[crazy canuck]

How do you know that very few innocent people are convicted regardless of how one might define "very few"?

The articles that I've seen written on the subject have numbers in the low hundreds of reported cases over several decades. That seems to be very small numbers compared to the number of convictions in question.

The system itself is very consciously defined to include a presumption of innocence that must be overcome. If in fact that system has failed and there are lots more than the presumed very low percentages, then  I think it is on those claiming that the system is not working as intended to show that.

Mostly these articles just cite particular examples, which while horrible for the particular people involved, don't actually evidence a systemic problem.

So I guess I will turn it around - how do you know that more than "very few" innocent people are convicted? Do you have some actual statistics?

It is an unknown figure.  Nobody knows how many innocent people are convicted.  What we do know is that the American system of justice has elected judges and prosecutors who consider convictions as wins.  I am not so sure such a system is created to ensure that innocent people are not convicted. 

[Barrister]

Berkut, the US justice system does a lot of things that other systems won't use.  Paid and/or jailhouse informants, reduced pleas for testimony, lots of high minimum sentences to coerce guilty pleas, and as CC mentions, elected judges and prosecutors.

[Kleves]

What we do know is that the American system of justice has elected judges and prosecutors who consider convictions as wins.  I am not so sure such a system is created to ensure that innocent people are not convicted.

In order to convict, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's assume that it is more difficult to find such proof if someone is, in fact, innocent. Wouldn't a prosecutor only concerned about his conviction percentage be less likely to take an innocent person to trial, as there would generally be less evidence against that person?

[Kleves]

What I care about is the interpretation of the law by the supreme court that innocence in and of itself is not enough to overturn a convicion.

The accused was innocent until the prosecution produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty. If there were no problems that rendered the trial unfair, why should a court re-open a case just because the accussed says that the jury got it wrong?

[Valmy]

If there were no problems that rendered the trial unfair, why should a court re-open a case just because the accussed says that the jury got it wrong?

Because new information came to light?

I swear Alfred Dreyfus would have never gotten off Devil's Island if it was up to you people.

[Barrister]

What we do know is that the American system of justice has elected judges and prosecutors who consider convictions as wins.  I am not so sure such a system is created to ensure that innocent people are not convicted.

In order to convict, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's assume that it is more difficult to find such proof if someone is, in fact, innocent. Wouldn't a prosecutor only concerned about his conviction percentage be less likely to take an innocent person to trial, as there would generally be less evidence against that person?

Conviction % is not the only factor an unscrupulous prosecutor may be worried about.  Thre is also a huge interest in trying to secure convictions in high profile cases.  As a prosecutor it's very difficult to walk up to the microphone and say "there's not enough evidence to have a trial".

[Berkut]

Berkut, the US justice system does a lot of things that other systems won't use.  Paid and/or jailhouse informants, reduced pleas for testimony, lots of high minimum sentences to coerce guilty pleas, and as CC mentions, elected judges and prosecutors.

And I am all for reforming those things, at least many of them.

[grumbler]

If there were no problems that rendered the trial unfair, why should a court re-open a case just because the accussed says that the jury got it wrong?

Because new information came to light?

I swear Alfred Dreyfus would have never gotten off Devil's Island if it was up to you people.

I don't think you can re-open every trial every time anything new comes to light. 

I swear, we'd have no time to actually try people charged with crimes if it was up to you.

[dps]

What we do know is that the American system of justice has elected judges and prosecutors who consider convictions as wins.

Prosecutors I'll grant you, but do you have any evidence that trial judges consider convictions as wins?

[Ideologue]

If, of course, someone can suggest a reform to the system to allow fewer innocent people being jailed while at the same time NOT allowing more guilty people to get off, everyone is all for that, I am sure.

Yeah.  Sure they are.