Innocent prisoner's dilemma

Desert Fox

Philosopher
Desert Fox
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
6,147
I know this is from Wiki but I have seen this in a number of wrongful conviction cases which we have discussed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma
The innocent prisoner's dilemma, or 'Parole Deal', is a detrimental effect of a legal system in which admission of guilt can result in reduced sentences or early parole. When an innocent person is wrongly convicted of a crime, legal systems which need the individual to admit guilt, for example as a prerequisite step leading to parole, punish an innocent person for his integrity, and reward a person lacking in integrity. There have been many cases where innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for admitting guilt, and remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. Individuals have died in prison rather than admit to crimes which they did not commit.

It has been demonstrated in Britain that prisoners who freely admit their guilt are more likely to re-offend than prisoners who maintain their innocence, yet parole officers perceive prisoners claiming innocence to be more likely to re-offend.

United States law professor Daniel Medwed says convicts who go before a parole board maintaining their innocence are caught in a Catch-22 which he calls "the innocent prisoner’s dilemma".[1] A false admission of guilt and remorse by an innocent person at a parole hearing may prevent a later investigation proving their innocence.[2]

So thoughts on solutions?
 
Desert Fox said:
It has been demonstrated in Britain that prisoners who freely admit their guilt are more likely to re-offend than prisoners who maintain their innocence
Click to expand...
For the blindingly obvious reason that most people who admit guilt have a criminal mentality, while those who don't are more likely to be actual innocents who don't commit crimes.

But not always. If I was wrongly imprisoned I would resign myself to the fact and admit my 'guilt', concentrate on keeping healthy and being a model prisoner, and work towards getting early parole. My 'reform' would be convincing because apart from lying about my 'guilt' I would just have to act the same as normal. However, while inside I would have plenty of time to think about how to exact revenge on the people who put me in there once I got out!
 
Here is a legal dilemma I often think of.

Lets say I accuse someone of something awful and get them convicted. Maybe at 20 I really want to get someone back and I go and plant child pornography on their computer and get them convicted..... Or maybe I accuse them of rape... or whatever. Anyway the guy is convicted and sent to jail for 15 years. 5 years in I regret what I did... and I want to go and admit to the wrong I committed. But in doing so I myself would be exposing myself to prosecution. How should the legal system handle these situations? Personally I think that person should get immunity if they do the right thing. Thoughts? IS this something discussed in the legal community?
 
Desert Fox said:
So thoughts on solutions?
Click to expand...


Strangely, a book I just read about psychopathy has opened some doors on this. It appears that one of the best predictors of recidivism is psychopathy. In fact, the author of The Psychopath Whisperer was involved in interviewing prisoners to judge whether they were at risk to re-offend.

It also happens to be that psychopaths are likely to admit their guilt. They tend to be proud of it or, at least, unaware of why it might have been wrong to commit the crime.

This means that one possible solution is to educate those in the criminal justice system about what the actual markers of guilt are, as opposed to what the gut tells us they seem to be.

At least, that's the way we're doing it in Denmark.
 
Caper said:
Personally I think that person should get immunity if they do the right thing. Thoughts? IS this something discussed in the legal community?
Click to expand...


For the love of MJ Watson, no. You did the wrong thing all the way around. And every day thereafter you continued to do the wrong thing. You don't get a gold star for providing evidence against yourself. There is absolutely no discussion in the legal community about immunity for criminals who harm other people.
 
Caper said:
Here is a legal dilemma I often think of.

Lets say I accuse someone of something awful and get them convicted. Maybe at 20 I really want to get someone back and I go and plant child pornography on their computer and get them convicted..... Or maybe I accuse them of rape... or whatever. Anyway the guy is convicted and sent to jail for 15 years. 5 years in I regret what I did... and I want to go and admit to the wrong I committed. But in doing so I myself would be exposing myself to prosecution. How should the legal system handle these situations? Personally I think that person should get immunity if they do the right thing. Thoughts? IS this something discussed in the legal community?
Click to expand...

How the hell does sending an innocent person to jail for five years equate to "do the right thing"? When you "admit to the wrong" you committed, you are confessing to a crime.
 
Henri de Laborde de Monpezat said:
For the love of MJ Watson, no. You did the wrong thing all the way around. And every day thereafter you continued to do the wrong thing. You don't get a gold star for providing evidence against yourself. There is absolutely no discussion in the legal community about immunity for criminals who harm other people.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That's sort of discussion occurs all the time amongst prosecutors and defense attorneys (and sometimes judges). I observed it numerous times first hand when I was a criminal defense attorney. You approach the prosecutor and hint at the information you intend to give them, and of course they usually make conditional promises, but depending on all the circumstances you can get anything from a reduction in proposed sentence to full immunity. There is most certainly an interest in getting people to come clean, and the legal system has a way to encourage that (I've just described it to you). Similarly, "snitches" or "rats" are offered deals all the time to testify or give evidence against someone who is "more culpable" or harder to prosecute-- a low level drug dealer wearing a wiretap to inculpate the drug lord, for example. Nothing new here.
ETA: in the specific situation described (falsely sending someone to jail for years) obviously it is going to be hard to get a prosecutor on your side--the point is that "coming clean" is most definitely a bargaining chip--and it is encouraged in the legal system.
 
Last edited:
As to the OP, from my experience, that was one of the toughest dilemmas in representing a client. There are all sorts of proposed solutions--none of them perfect. One way to solve the problem is to never allow reduced sentences or punishment, just make rock hard guidelines. Of course, practically that just doesn't work.
The Alford Plea, and similar pleas in various jurisdictions, was "invented" to solve part of the problem. With an Alford plea (and it comes up fairly frequently in criminal cases) The defendant does not acknowledge his guilt but simply acknowledges that the evidence is likely to convict him/her. The trick though is that prosecutors/judges are not always willing to offer such a plea.
 
gerdbonk said:
How the hell does sending an innocent person to jail for five years equate to "do the right thing"? When you "admit to the wrong" you committed, you are confessing to a crime.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the issue is this. If there is not any incentive for me to come clean... you spend your life in jail, not me. The whole system is geared towards the real guilty party to never admit they lied and thus only punish the innocent party.
 
Caper said:
Yes. But the issue is this. If there is not any incentive for me to come clean... you spend your life in jail, not me. The whole system is geared towards the real guilty party to never admit they lied and thus only punish the innocent party.
Click to expand...
Well well, a large part of the discussion about Mark Lundy is whether he will get parole in eight years.
He was sentenced in 2001 to 17 years for axing to death his wife and child in August 2000.
He appealed the verdict and sentence.
The appeal court confirmed the verdict and increased the sentence to 20 years.
He appealed to the British privy council, who instructed a new trial, and that he remain in jail pending that.
He was released on bail for 18 months.
He was reconvicted two days ago.

Under normal conditions, he would be released in 2018 as long as he expressed regret for his crime.

As it stands, he will now be eligible for parole in 2023, but only if he expresses regret for his crime.

Web sleuths can find all information online, and make a judgement call whether he committed the crime.

there is a thread near you
 
This one the main reason why both plea bargaining, pardons and such have a huge detrimental effect upon judicial systems. I'm all for criminals getting a lesser punishment for coming forward, admitting their actions and giving their view of the turn of events and evidence or otherwise helping the investigation but the prosecution and/or police should never try to pressure the accused into it.

The worst example I've seen is when the prosecutor says they wont file charges for everything they possibly can in return for a guilty plea, for example one "only" gets 15 years in prison instead of 25-to-life.
 
Arcade22 said:
This one the main reason why both plea bargaining, pardons and such have a huge detrimental effect upon judicial systems.
Click to expand...
Even worse reason -- the original prisoner's dilemma, where one of the defendants is in fact guilty, and the other is in fact innocent. The innocent defendant is very unlikely to admit guilt, while the guilty one is all too happy to get his sentence reduced by (falsely) ratting out the other. And if you think this is all hypothetical, this is why plea deals are illegal in several countries.

According to wiki
A 2009 study by the European Association of Law and Economics observed that innocent defendants are consistently more likely than guilty defendants to reject otherwise-favorable pleas proposals, even when theoretically disadvantageous to do so, because of perceived unfairness, and would do so even if the expected sanction would be worse if they proceeded to trial. The study concluded that "[t]his somewhat counterintuitive 'cost of innocence,' where the preferences of innocents lead them collectively to fare worse than their guilty counterparts, is further increased by the practice of imposing much harsher sentences at trial on defendants who contest the charges. This "trial penalty" seeks to facilitate guilty pleas by guilty defendants [...and ironically...] disproportionately, collectively, penalizes innocents, who reject on fairness grounds some offers their guilty counterparts accept."
Click to expand...
 
Desert Fox said:
So thoughts on solutions?
Click to expand...

Obviously, use criteria other than admission of guilt to determine eligibility for parole. Good behavior and cooperation with the prison system come to mind.

Some random thoughts...

Treat the question of guilt as a completely separate issue... The prisoner has been found guilty already, that's pretty much a done deal anyway... Their contrition or lack thereof is a matter of personal conscience that isn't for others to judge, whether parole board or anyone else... Deeds, not words, are what matter... What they have done in prison is important, not what they claim about their mental or emotional state before the parole board... And of course they have a right to maintain their innocence and appeal their case; such actions should never be prejudicial... The only thing words that should be prejudicial is if they actually express pride in the crime or willingness to commit more crime if given the opportunity.
 
Mark6 said:
Even worse reason -- the original prisoner's dilemma, where one of the defendants is in fact guilty, and the other is in fact innocent. The innocent defendant is very unlikely to admit guilt, while the guilty one is all too happy to get his sentence reduced by (falsely) ratting out the other. And if you think this is all hypothetical, this is why plea deals are illegal in several countries.

According to wiki
Click to expand...

I don't have access to the article. How do they identify who is really, truly innocent or guilty independent of court proceedings?
 
Caper said:
Here is a legal dilemma I often think of.

Lets say I accuse someone of something awful and get them convicted. Maybe at 20 I really want to get someone back and I go and plant child pornography on their computer and get them convicted..... Or maybe I accuse them of rape... or whatever. Anyway the guy is convicted and sent to jail for 15 years. 5 years in I regret what I did... and I want to go and admit to the wrong I committed. But in doing so I myself would be exposing myself to prosecution. How should the legal system handle these situations? Personally I think that person should get immunity if they do the right thing. Thoughts? IS this something discussed in the legal community?
Click to expand...

In S.F. there was a murder case where the witness recanted her testimony and claimed she was coerced by S.F.P.D. and the D.A.'s office into giving false testimony - the two individuals convicted were released, nobody was prosecuted from the PD and DA's office - see Antoine Goff (Pictured) & John Tennison at the below link:

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=407

There was also a case in S.F. that involved a future S.F.P.D. CLEO

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/43523.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Wrongfully-convicted-S-F-man-poised-to-get-3-5-5619070.php

And other than taxpayer dollars going out the door, nobody in the PD or DA's office even faced prosecution over the case.

I would believe that if you indeed acted as described in your post you wouldn't face a criminal charge, but you would end up in civil court.

And rightfully so.
 
theprestige said:
And of course they have a right to maintain their innocence and appeal their case
Click to expand...
Sure they do - but such insolence will be punished.

We know they are guilty because the police and prosecutors decided that they were, and the courts agreed. To continue to profess their innocence is a slap in the face for the entire justice system and all those of us who support it, let alone any victims and their families.

Take Mark Lundy for example. If he just admitted to the crime and expressed regret then he would be out in a few years. But being the narcissistic psychopath that he is, he had to keep gaming the system in a vain attempt to trick us into believing he is innocent. The result has simply been an enormous waste of our time and money, as well as upsetting people and shaking their confidence in the police. For this he should rot in prison for life (at least).


Lets say I accuse someone of something awful and get them convicted... 5 years in I regret what I did... and I want to go and admit to the wrong I committed. But in doing so I myself would be exposing myself to prosecution.
Click to expand...
You should keep quiet, not just for your own protection but also because of the embarrassment and more that the rest of us would feel about having to quash the conviction. Far better to let us think that justice has been served, and feel happy that you got away with it.
 
You need to understand that low ball is about 5% are innocent and I would argue that of "difficult cases" about 20% are wrongful convictions.
 
Desert Fox said:
So thoughts on solutions?
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence at all that people want a solution?

All of the evidence I have is that nobody cares. They just enjoy it when someone gets locked up, and they don't really care all that much who it is.
 
epepke said:
Is there any evidence at all that people want a solution?

All of the evidence I have is that nobody cares. They just enjoy it when someone gets locked up, and they don't really care all that much who it is.
Click to expand...
They don't care in these parts. This is a laconic editorial about the big guy Lundy, the most despised man in New Zealand.

"Lundy will now return to prison to serve the eight years he has remaining before qualifying for parole. Since he still insists on his innocence and shows no remorse, suggesting he has no insight into the monstrousness of what he has done, he may well serve longer."

A pity they have the wrong guy.
 
BStrong said:
I would believe that if you indeed acted as described in your post you wouldn't face a criminal charge, but you would end up in civil court.

And rightfully so.
Click to expand...



Maybe rightfully so. But is that a good thing? If you know that by recanting your testimony that you are going to end up in court getting sued.... doesn't that leave you with a huge incentive not to go and do the right thing?
 
epepke said:
Is there any evidence at all that people want a solution?

All of the evidence I have is that nobody cares. They just enjoy it when someone gets locked up, and they don't really care all that much who it is.
Click to expand...

The podcast Serial was immensely popular, people clambered about the West Memphis Three, and there are other similar cases.

I would argue that it may not be a majority but there are sizable numbers of people interested in this issue
 
One should also not forget those that admit to having committed crimes that they are completely innocent of. Many great examples come from attention seeking murderers and other histrionic individuals who admit to having committed sometimes up to hundreds of murders, often when they pretty much have a water tight alibi.

Depending on how gullible and suggestible the prosecution and judge(s) iare cases where the killer or killers (if there are any, the deaths might be completely natural but the body just isn't found) are still loose might be declared closed.
 
Arcade22 said:
One should also not forget those that admit to having committed crimes that they are completely innocent of. Many great examples come from attention seeking murderers and other histrionic individuals who admit to having committed sometimes up to hundreds of murders, often when they pretty much have a water tight alibi.

Depending on how gullible and suggestible the prosecution and judge(s) iare cases where the killer or killers (if there are any, the deaths might be completely natural but the body just isn't found) are still loose might be declared closed.
Click to expand...

This is more a false confession issue which I started a new thread on.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291230
 
Desert Fox said:
The podcast Serial was immensely popular, people clambered about the West Memphis Three, and there are other similar cases.

I would argue that it may not be a majority but there are sizable numbers of people interested in this issue
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Serial immensely, myself. But that kind of thing is just a blip, a moment of cathartic outrage. Nothing substantial ever changes. While it may be of interest to some people, including myself, I don't see the evidence that there is any desire to make any systematic changes.

If, say, Adned is let out of prison, people will be happy that Justice Has Been Done™ and go back to sleep.
 
epepke said:
I enjoyed Serial immensely, myself. But that kind of thing is just a blip, a moment of cathartic outrage. Nothing substantial ever changes. While it may be of interest to some people, including myself, I don't see the evidence that there is any desire to make any systematic changes.

If, say, Adned is let out of prison, people will be happy that Justice Has Been Done™ and go back to sleep.
Click to expand...

If you feel we are tilting at windmills, why even bother posting? People still go to psychics and believe them too.

basically, why don't you just go back to sleep yourself with the belief that nothing matters?
 
Samson said:
They don't care in these parts. This is a laconic editorial about the big guy Lundy, the most despised man in New Zealand.

"Lundy will now return to prison to serve the eight years he has remaining before qualifying for parole. Since he still insists on his innocence and shows no remorse, suggesting he has no insight into the monstrousness of what he has done, he may well serve longer."

A pity they have the wrong guy.
Click to expand...

That's one thing. You are punished for being innocent, and then you're punished if you don't lie about it.

This seems to me to indicate that the functional purpose of the system is to make people guilty. You convict them, and then you put pressure on them to behave as if they were guilty.

It seems that whether an individual actually did it of no importance whatsoever. I don't see evidence that innocent people are preferred for conviction per se, but neither is there any evidence that the genuinely guilty are preferred. The system works much the same way, here on the other side of the Earth as well.

One of the things that I've noticed in the US since the 1980s has been a push for "victim's rights" and the idea that they need to be "balanced" against the rights of the accused. This makes absolutely no sense under the idea that the rights of the accused are there in any way to prevent conviction of the innocent. Therefore, they must not be there for that purpose.

All of this actually makes perfect sense. Crime is fairly rare. Particularly "heinous" crimes are extremely rare. However, they are scary, far out of proportion to the actual risk they cause overall. (c.f. terrorism) What is needed, therefore, is a kind of justice theatre, that will make the rest of the people, who are mostly not criminals and will only be occasional victims feel a bit more secure. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as some say.

So this system produces convicts, and a convict that later displays remorse makes for a better story. Whether a guilty or innocent person is chosen is pretty much irrelevant, and there is a much larger supply of innocent people to convict.

The system also increases crime, of course, as prison trains people to become criminals rather effectively, and the inability to find work thereafter forces criminality just to survive. This is considered an acceptable cost for the illusion of safety.
 
Desert Fox said:
If you feel we are tilting at windmills, why even bother posting? People still go to psychics and believe them too.
Click to expand...

Because if you want to try to find a way to change things, then it's extremely important to consider the social processes that I'm describing. You can't just come up with some techniques or ways or whatever. We have many, many of those. The problem is that they aren't being implemented. The reason that they aren't being implemented is due to the social forces I'm describing.

It's a bit like when I see every once in a while some mathematician come up with a better voting system. They're always clever in an idealized mathematical sense. They're always masturbatory. That's not the problem with voting. The problem with voting is that people in power do things to accumulate more power to themselves and their parties. The actual system is the least of the problems, and it is a fatuity to believe that a good system guarantees good results.

Skeptics in particular are susceptible to this fatuity, which I find problematic, because the skeptic movement started by realizing that focusing on a narrow aspect is the wrong focus. Uri Geller fooled physicists. They weren't bad physicists; they were at high enough caliber to get into Stanford. But they were physicists, and they did not pay attention to important things about how human beings functioned. It took magicians, who are skilled about what fools human beings, to correct the problem. If that hadn't happened, there wouldn't be a skeptic movement at all, nor this forum, and the work "skeptic" would still mean David Hume or something.

Of course, it's entirely possible, even likely, that you are not discussing these things as part of an effort to make things better. If so, then quo erat demonstrandum.
 
Last edited:
epepke said:
Because if you want to try to find a way to change things, then it's extremely important to consider the social processes that I'm describing. You can't just come up with some techniques or ways or whatever. We have many, many of those. The problem is that they aren't being implemented. The reason that they aren't being implemented is due to the social forces I'm describing.

It's a bit when I see every once in a while some mathematician come up with a better voting system. They're always clever in an idealized mathematical sense. They're always masturbatory. That's not the problem with voting. The problem with voting is that people in power do things to accumulate more power to themselves and their parties. The actual system is the least of the problems, and it is a fatuity to believe that a good system guarantees good results.

Skeptics in particular are susceptible to this fatuity, which I find problematic, because the skeptic movement started by realizing that focusing on a narrow aspect is the wrong focus. Uri Geller fooled physicists. They weren't bad physicists; they were at high enough caliber to get into Stanford. But they were physicists, and they did not pay attention to important things about how human beings functioned. It took magicians, who are skilled about what fools human beings, to correct the problem. If that hadn't happened, there wouldn't be a skeptic movement at all, nor this forum, and the work "skeptic" would still mean David Hume or something.

Of course, it's entirely possible, even likely, that you are not discussing these things as part of an effort to make things better. If so, then quo erat demonstrandum.
Click to expand...

While many cops try to argue against it, there is widespread support of recording entire police interviews and I believe that having police officers with full time cameras in general.

There can be two debates here
1) what people can be convinced to support
2) What is potentially the best solution.

The TV show 48 hours is popular and they do often feature cases which appear to be wrongful convictions. There is some interest in these cases.

Prosecutors often cry about the CSI effect but I think it is actually good. They want some legitimate physical evidence these days.
 
Desert Fox said:
While many cops try to argue against it, there is widespread support of recording entire police interviews and I believe that having police officers with full time cameras in general.

There can be two debates here
1) what people can be convinced to support
2) What is potentially the best solution.

The TV show 48 hours is popular and they do often feature cases which appear to be wrongful convictions. There is some interest in these cases.

Prosecutors often cry about the CSI effect but I think it is actually good. They want some legitimate physical evidence these days.
Click to expand...
Ironically the last act before sending Lundy down was this

In fact one of the jurors spent the entire video watching Lundy in the dock. He didn't look at the video at all. At another point, the forewoman turned suddenly around to him, and they nodded, and smiled.
What was all that about? Who can read a jury? Perhaps they were looking at other things in the video. Maybe it had nothing to do with Lundy's exhibition - did he actually cry? - and more to do with other subjects the two men covered in the interview. But they could simply have read the transcript. The jury, or however many members of the jury, requested to see the video again because they wanted to look at the way Lundy behaved.

No doubt this might have sealed Knox' fate too
 
epepke said:
The system also increases crime, of course, as prison trains people to become criminals rather effectively, and the inability to find work thereafter forces criminality just to survive. This is considered an acceptable cost for the illusion of safety.
Click to expand...
You have it almost right. It's true that whether the accused is actually guilty or not doesn't matter, so long as we think they are guilty. And it's true that the current system increases crime over what would occur with a fairer system. However while heinous crimes are rare, they would be a lot less rare if we didn't have a justice system at all. Therefore the safety it gives us is not completely illusory - it's just overrated.

Our current justice system certainly works - just not as well as it could. We have the technology to improve it, but many people are afraid that it would impinge on their 'freedoms'. We could have a national DNA database with every citizen on it, a comprehensive network of security cameras to record all public movements, and constant monitoring of electronic communications devices. The problem is that people tend only to think of how that might make them a suspect, rather than how it would help to exonerate them.

I think that as more and more convictions get overturned and the horrors that innocents go through are publicized, public opinion will warm towards using technologies which can prevent it. As law abiding citizens we should not fear being part of a system which reliably catches and convicts actual criminals while keeping the rest of us off suspect lists.
 
Samson said:
The jury, or however many members of the jury, requested to see the video again because they wanted to look at the way Lundy behaved.
Click to expand...
I have been on a jury and was appalled by the criteria some other jurors used to make their decisions. In my case they actually wanted to acquit the accused because they thought the victim deserved it!
 
Desert Fox said:
While many cops try to argue against it, there is widespread support of recording entire police interviews and I believe that having police officers with full time cameras in general.
Click to expand...

I'm all for it. I don't, however, consider it a magic bullet.

There can be two debates here
1) what people can be convinced to support
2) What is potentially the best solution.
Click to expand...

I suppose the idea that there can be two debates is an improvement over your previous wonder why I didn't just shut up.

I still think it can be more complicated than that, and I shall continue to comment as it occurs to me to do so, unless I get bored or irritated at stupidity.
 
epepke said:
I'm all for it. I don't, however, consider it a magic bullet.

I suppose the idea that there can be two debates is an improvement over your previous wonder why I didn't just shut up.

I still think it can be more complicated than that, and I shall continue to comment as it occurs to me to do so, unless I get bored or irritated at stupidity.
Click to expand...

The thing I can remember is debates of just a few years ago about the impossibility of legalizing gay marriage. Often the first step in any issue is to try.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I have been on a jury and was appalled by the criteria some other jurors used to make their decisions. In my case they actually wanted to acquit the accused because they thought the victim deserved it!
Click to expand...
I have never been on a jury, but I can imagine a situation where I would vote to acquit on a similar basis. I am not saying it is likely, but it is not inconceivable for me.
 
Mark6 said:
I have never been on a jury, but I can imagine a situation where I would vote to acquit on a similar basis. I am not saying it is likely, but it is not inconceivable for me.
Click to expand...

Well, I have been on a jury and I wish the defendant had not testified. I could have acquitted him based on reasonable doubt.
 
BStrong said:
In S.F. there was a murder case where the witness recanted her testimony and claimed she was coerced by S.F.P.D. and the D.A.'s office into giving false testimony - the two individuals convicted were released, nobody was prosecuted from the PD and DA's office - see Antoine Goff (Pictured) & John Tennison at the below link:

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=407

There was also a case in S.F. that involved a future S.F.P.D. CLEO

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/01/43523.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Wrongfully-convicted-S-F-man-poised-to-get-3-5-5619070.php

And other than taxpayer dollars going out the door, nobody in the PD or DA's office even faced prosecution over the case.

I would believe that if you indeed acted as described in your post you wouldn't face a criminal charge, but you would end up in civil court.

And rightfully so.
Click to expand...

No, those cases are distinguishable. In your example the testifier got off by blaming the prosecutors (which for obvious reasons would make a prosecution rather difficult) But for Caper's example, in most jurisdictions you could most certainly face criminal charges--for a variety of possible offenses (unlawful imprisonment, providing false testimony or evidence etc)
 
Last edited:
Mark6 said:
I have never been on a jury, but I can imagine a situation where I would vote to acquit on a similar basis. I am not saying it is likely, but it is not inconceivable for me.
Click to expand...

Which demonstrates the problem with juries.

They are ostensibly there to determine whether or not the accused committed the crime and not to determine the rightness or wrongness of the law or whether or not someone should be punished for having broken a law.
 
Having served on a couple of juries I agree the jurors are there to make a legal finding: did the defendant break the law in the way the prosecution has charged them with doing.

However isn't a jury also supposed to render justice? Isn't our legal system founded on the principal that defendants are entitled to justice? Lawyers talk about runaway juries but it does happen that juries decide, "This law is just plain wrong," and acquit. Or decide, "Any reasonable person could have reacted the way the defendant did," and they acquit.

To my mind, for a jury to do that is not a miscarriage of justice, that IS justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom