Innocent prisoner's dilemma

newyorkguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that reasoning leads to the juries deciding that the victim of the crime didn't deserve justice. Assaulted pedophile, who cares? You deserved it. There's a reason justice should be blind. Value judgements should be evaluated when sentencing not when determining if a crime happened. Justice is the end result of the process not a mid point.
 
Stacko said:
And that reasoning leads to the juries deciding that the victim of the crime didn't deserve justice. Assaulted pedophile, who cares? You deserved it. There's a reason justice should be blind. Value judgements should be evaluated when sentencing not when determining if a crime happened. Justice is the end result of the process not a mid point.
Click to expand...

Umm. I don't think you actually really said anything here
 
newyorkguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is an important point. The whole "dilemma" in this thread only arises because there is some standard of factual truth beyond what the jury has determined. The prisoner is granted the status of having information unavailable to everyone else, otherwise, there would be no conflict.

But from the outside, she's guilty. By definition. The external truth, that she did it, is the valid one, since there's no way for her to offer evidence that the consensus is incorrect. She's in the position of someone who has talked to Jesus - she knows Jesus is real, but has no way to prove it to others.

In this situation, it's better to adopt the consensus and move on from there. Truth (with a capital T) has no sway - it's not the truth that matters so much as the truth you can prove to others. Truth, in this venue, is a social construct, an artifact of living with, and being under the control of, others.

The system has already proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accept it and move on. There's no relevant appeal to any authority beyond the system in play. Guilt is a social construct, not a factual matter. Pragmatism rules the day and idealism must bow to the practical.

Unless, of course, martyrdom appeals to her. I wouldn't take away her right of self-sacrifice. But it's a mistake driven by hubris and an unwillingness to face reality.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
The system has already proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accept it and move on. There's no relevant appeal to any authority beyond the system in play. Guilt is a social construct, not a factual matter. Pragmatism rules the day and idealism must bow to the practical
Click to expand...
I agree. Being convicted of a crime you didn't commit should be a wake up call to anyone thinks 'truth' and 'justice' have any meaning beyond the whims of society.

Rather than protest your innocence it is better to lie, and become the criminal that everybody thinks you are. It's the only psychopathic practical thing to do. After crossing that line a great weight will be lifted, as you realize that guilt is just an arbitrary social construct with no relationship to truth. You're only guilty if they can prove it - so lie, cheat, steal, rape and murder all you want - just don't get caught!

Unless, of course, martyrdom appeals to her. I wouldn't take away her right of self-sacrifice. But it's a mistake driven by hubris and an unwillingness to face reality.
Click to expand...
It's a mistake that might be made by someone who has been crippled by morals, empathy and a conscience. She should cast all that baggage aside and embrace her new role as a manipulative liar who will do anything to achieve her goals - like the rest of us. Welcome to reality!
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I agree. Being convicted of a crime you didn't commit should be a wake up call to anyone thinks 'truth' and 'justice' have any meaning beyond the whims of society.

Rather than protest your innocence it is better to lie, and become the criminal that everybody thinks you are. It's the only psychopathic practical thing to do. After crossing that line a great weight will be lifted, as you realize that guilt is just an arbitrary social construct with no relationship to truth. You're only guilty if they can prove it - so lie, cheat, steal, rape and murder all you want - just don't get caught!

It's a mistake that might be made by someone who has been crippled by morals, empathy and a conscience. She should cast all that baggage aside and embrace her new role as a manipulative liar who will do anything to achieve her goals - like the rest of us. Welcome to reality!
Click to expand...

What's the alternative?

If you accept the reality of your situation, there's no harm in accepting guilt. In your heart of hearts you still know you are innocent - that hasn't changed one bit. The only thing that changes is you get to spend your remaining years outside of prison instead of inside. You still get to believe everything you believed before. All you are doing is recognizing that society disagrees with you and dealing with that reality.

Say I know ghosts are real. What good does it do me to insist everyone else accept this? Why not pretend they aren't for the larger good of getting along with my fellow men?
 
marplots said:
This is an important point. The whole "dilemma" in this thread only arises because there is some standard of factual truth beyond what the jury has determined. The prisoner is granted the status of having information unavailable to everyone else, otherwise, there would be no conflict.

But from the outside, she's guilty. By definition. The external truth, that she did it, is the valid one, since there's no way for her to offer evidence that the consensus is incorrect. She's in the position of someone who has talked to Jesus - she knows Jesus is real, but has no way to prove it to others.

In this situation, it's better to adopt the consensus and move on from there. Truth (with a capital T) has no sway - it's not the truth that matters so much as the truth you can prove to others. Truth, in this venue, is a social construct, an artifact of living with, and being under the control of, others.

The system has already proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accept it and move on. There's no relevant appeal to any authority beyond the system in play. Guilt is a social construct, not a factual matter. Pragmatism rules the day and idealism must bow to the practical.

Unless, of course, martyrdom appeals to her. I wouldn't take away her right of self-sacrifice. But it's a mistake driven by hubris and an unwillingness to face reality.
Click to expand...
And that's why we need reliable way to read people's memories, if only in laboratary setting.

Many people recoil from the idea in horror -- Orwell on steroids! But I think that's the closest we can get to real justice.
 
Mark6 said:
And that's why we need reliable way to read people's memories, if only in laboratary setting.

Many people recoil from the idea in horror -- Orwell on steroids! But I think that's the closest we can get to real justice.
Click to expand...

It would be a significant tool, at least as significant as DNA testing is. Memory reading might be tough, but I don't see why we couldn't improve on the polygraph - imagine a lie detector that actually worked, with a neutral body in charge of administering it, perhaps with questions submitted/vetted by your attorney. Arguably, if it worked, it would be a great boon to the innocent, while the guilty could refuse under their right to avoid self-incrimination.
 
Last edited:
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...

Indeed. It's too satisfying to feel that someone has been punished for harm caused to society. Actual results (wrongful conviction, hardened criminals, recidivism) be damned.
 
marplots said:
What's the alternative?
Click to expand...
The alternative is to keep beating yourself up about the 'wrongs' society has done to you. Some people may get stuck in that mental state, even enjoy it. But it's counterproductive and only causes misery.

If you accept the reality of your situation, there's no harm in accepting guilt... The only thing that changes is you get to spend your remaining years outside of prison instead of inside.
Click to expand...
You get your freedom sooner, but that's not the only benefit. You also get a valuable lesson in how society really works, and how you can work the system to maximize your personal happiness. You may still believe that you are 'innocent', but your attitude towards justice and truth has changed. You now understand that the only thing that matters is what you get out of life - not whether you are doing it the 'right' way.

All you are doing is recognizing that society disagrees with you and dealing with that reality.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that revelation is no small thing. Many famous people started on the road to greatness after a stint in prison gave them such insight - Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Tim Allen, Hitler.

Say I know ghosts are real. What good does it do me to insist everyone else accept this? Why not pretend they aren't for the larger good of getting along with my fellow men?
Click to expand...
It does no good to hang on to useless concepts such as ghosts or justice. As children we believed the stories that people in authority fed us, but on growing up we discover that they were just stories and don't exist in reality - or at least not in our reality.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
It would be a significant tool, at least as significant as DNA testing is. Memory reading might be tough, but I don't see why we couldn't improve on the polygraph
Click to expand...
A 'reliable' memory reading tool may be useful, but we shouldn't expect too much from it. Human memory is not like a video camera that takes in everything and records it forever - our minds would fill up in just a few days if that was how it worked. And memories don't just fade over time, they also change. Upon reflection a murderer's memory of the crime may evolve to the point where they blank out all the details, truly believe it was an accident, or even convince themselves that a stranger did it.

A 'mind reading' machine could certainly tell us whether a suspect was lying or telling the 'truth', but lie detectors do that already. Relying on fallible memories, even if extracted directly from the brain, would be a dangerous policy. It could get to the point where criminal trials were not considered necessary because the courts would already know what everybody involved had done (or at least what they 'remembered' doing). Then physical evidence might not be given the weight it deserves, and people would effectively be convicted on their thoughts alone.

If guilt could be determined by simply reading the defendant's mind, defense lawyers would then spend all their time trying to convince their clients that they are innocent! (of course the situation would not change much for the police - since forcing a suspect into believing he is guilty is already one of their standard interrogation techniques).
 
We are about to embark on a real time chance to watch this process. Scott Watson is adjudged innocent on the thread started by The Atheist on this sub forum. Not one poster has suggested he could be factually guilty.
It seems reasonable to watch closely his parole hearing in june, where release is impossible because he will not express remorse for someone else's crime, and the system will not release him because this would be tantamount to acknowledging he may be innocent.
It would help the thread if someone who has more information can explain why he must not be released on parole.
 
This case looks a classic when considering the judge's comments.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/ru...itation-prospects/YDPRQBNX6GZOYDKZYQYC3CGQWM/

When Jarryd Hayne stepped into the witness box of courtroom 6.1 in the Newcastle Court House on Thursday, he blurted out the words: "I didn't do it."

Those words earned a stern rebuke from Judge Helen Syme, who said it explained why his prospects of rehabilitation were so poor as she sentenced him to several years in jail.

Because he claims christian beliefs as anchoring his truth telling he is probably guilty, but what if he is innocent in this matter?
 
I think our adversarial legal system sucks, it's flawed from the root up. Because it's based, in principle, on each side trying to get the best outcome for their client, regardless of actual guilt. So that 'truth' becomes incidental.

Just like the police is supposed to be impartial, I'd think that, in principle at least, a single unitary legal system is what makes sense. Sure, the two sides might present their story, but it should be based on the expectation that they'd be truthful, even if in reality that may not always hold. We shouldn't be incentivizing each party to do their best to disingenuously game the system by normalizing a legal system, and lawyers, that are expected to cherry pick.

The very basis of our legal system, the whole adversarial thing, is rotten. Or so it seems to me.



Eta: Oh, resurrected thread, is it? The resurrection was apt enough, but my post's probably out of place, in that case.
 
Last edited:
Mark Lundy is innocent and denied parole specifically because he will not describe why or how he did a crime committed by others.
2 more years, then he will say it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom