Discussion
  • Read More
    Peter_ThielHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 10:14am

    What if he had actually done it, though?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.Peter_Thiel
      3/11/16 11:31am

      What does it matter what would have happened if he had? He hadn’t.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Peter_ThielYou might be wrong.
      3/11/16 12:05pm

      I know. What I'm saying what if he had? He either did or didn't. The odds are 50/50. This article would be pointless is he had done it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    norbiznessHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 10:16am

    I was recently on a criminal jury panel (as an attorney, I had no shot of getting selecting), and during voir dire answered the question “Why do false convictions occur?” with (1) jurors’ ongoing trust in eyewitness testimony, which is unreliable, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SnakeMcEyepatchnorbizness
      3/11/16 10:23am

      That’s pretty much it. The only addition would be (3) sleezy cops and prosecutors railroading people. That happens less frequently than the bigger dynamics you cited, but it’s out there - especially when defense counsel is inept or overburdened. Easy to slip some shit by a public defender with 200 other cases.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      deanmartinsrectalpolyps2norbizness
      3/11/16 10:34am

      Judges on the side of the prosecutors helps too.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    America's WangHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 10:17am

    Hypothetical that I have ruminated on since a child:

    If you’re falsely imprisoned for life but incidentally kill a guard in an escape attempt—is that a just killing?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      selmabouvierterwilligerhutzmcclureAmerica's Wang
      3/11/16 10:22am

      Uhh...no. The guard wasn't the person who falsely convicted you.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsAmerica's Wang
      3/11/16 10:26am

      The problem with hypotheticals is that it’s too easy to make “the guard” a faceless representation of the state who committed a horrible atrocity.

      The guard’s a human being too, one who was unlikely to have had any agency in the wrongful imprisonment.

      One exception might be if the guard was an inmate murdering bag of dicks.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IAMBlastedBiggsLostBurnerHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 10:28am

    It's the "Fuck It. He's As Good As Anybody Else We Can Find" school of legal strategy, based in no small part on the idea that the unfortunate victims of such heinous miscarriages of justice were going to be wasting those years anyway, so why not clear the caseload and have 'em waste them in jail?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      facwIAMBlastedBiggsLostBurner
      3/11/16 10:33am

      You wonder how terrible his defense attorney must have been.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      opiumsmabytchIAMBlastedBiggsLostBurner
      3/11/16 10:36am

      “Fits the description”

      Makes me wonder what favours were owed and to who.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    DolemiteHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 11:01am

    You are supposed to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but how any of these juries have ZERO doubts concerning all of these cases that are full of shaky eye-witness testimony (which is wrong about as often as it is right), and with so much circumstantial evidence is pretty damning of our system.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.Dolemite
      3/11/16 11:28am

      It’s also damning of jurors specifically. People believe eyewitness testimony when they should know, even from their own personal experiences, that that’s unfair.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      asmallcatDolemite
      3/11/16 2:17pm

      People love to think that if THEY were robbed/saw a murder/whatever, they would recognize the guy (despite overwhelming evidence that that’s not true), so they believe that other people will too.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SpringSprungHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 10:17am

    I guess the good news is that as a mildly impaired black man convicted of murder, Mr. Hatchett wasn’t living in Texas at the time. He would have been executed 3 times already in 25 years.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SnaabinSpringSprung
      3/11/16 10:56am

      “Another murder?! Ugh, this guy won’t stop. Ok, to the graveyard, lets dig up Hatchett and get him on trial again. Damn serial killers.”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MockingbirdHillHamilton Nolan
    3/11/16 10:15am

    “Keep his big mouth locked up anyway. He could be Isis for all we know.” -Trump supporter.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ThrumbolioHamilton Nolan
      3/11/16 11:04am

      NOTES FROM THE GRAYS:

      I am pointing out that you are willing to accept the imprisonment, sometimes until death, of innocent people. It happens and will always happen. How do you justify this?

      See, it’s actually a really simple answer: shit happens. Let’s look at ways to possibly prevent shit from happening with regularity.

      This is the shittiest attempt at a “gotcha” I’ve seen in some time. It’s like saying “Well, heart disease is a leading cause of death in this country, yet you KNOW that people still eat mayonnaise! How can you live with yourself!?”

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        You might be wrong.Thrumbolio
        3/11/16 11:27am

        Shit doesn’t have to happen at all.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      ArdenHamilton Nolan
      3/11/16 10:29am

      If I were imprisoned for a murder I didn’t commit for 1/4 my life, when I got out you can bet your ass I would BECOME a murderer as I ‘Good Citizen’ my way through every lawyer, judge, and juror involved in the case.

      That shit like this continues to happen infuriates me. ONE innocent person behind bars is enough reason to reform the entire system. I’d rather see 50 killers walk free than one innocent man’s life taken unjustly away.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Wayward ApologyHamilton Nolan
        3/11/16 10:35am

        And this is why you should take the “I have nothing to hide” side on things like encryption/privacy. Someone I knew had nothing to hide either when they were dragged on trial out of state for a crime they didn’t commit because the prosecution withheld evidence that showed his innocence on the second go around with the grand jury after they failed to indict with the you know, innocence stuff the first time.

        You can be 100% factually innocent of a crime but if the prosecutor has it out for you, well, they know very well how to make the banal and mundane look incriminating, never assume actual innocence will keep you on the other side of the jail door.

        Reply
        <