The Innocent Project

[open mind]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/


read up on these cases and you'll see a gigantic and hideous hole in our justice system.

i think those who have been wrongly convicted should receive compensation......but many states will not allow it.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I support eliminating the death penalty.

[And Hours Pass]

Not again! Does this mean we're going to see another flood of 15 unrelated political threads where you become infuriated at people "misunderstanding" all the shenanigans that you're posting?


EDIT: I'm very familiar with the group you're referencing. So much so that I would have known that it's "The Innocence Project," and not "The Innocent Project."

[atticus18244fss]

Just watched the episode on Tom Willingham. It was interesting. I suggest if you guys have some free time you watch it.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Not again! Does this mean we're going to see another flood of 15 unrelated political threads where you become infuriated at people "misunderstanding" all the shenanigans that you're posting?


EDIT: I'm very familiar with the group you're referencing. So much so that I would have known that it's "The Innocence Project," and not "The Innocent Project."

Was gonna post this lol

[Chancetobe]

I agree wholeheartedly. Just from looking around in my crim class, it's clear some people, as either over-'let's get um' prosectors or jury members leap to convict, for instance, men of rape, just on the women's statement. I personally think it's far better to have a woman go without 'justice' or 'revenge' then to see someone wrongly rot in jail. Not only are they harmed for the time they are in jail, but, it seems to prove difficult to explain to future employers, all your life plans are put on hold, I'd imagine it wouldn't be the best way to find a love interest. I mean, your entire life is fucked up and there should be some compensation for that. The difficulty of course is how much to give. Some of the numbers mentioned here, seem a bit high. Although, I suppose $50k a year is about what a person would make in a year, so that seems fine. Then again, I think I inherently have a problem with torts. Best thing to happen: stop wrongly convicting. Humm, the more i talk this out in my head, the more i'm confused by if it's a good idea or not. I think it is, but, sometimes the idea of paying for harming someone treads into ridiculous territory. I think I'm for it.

[LostAllways]

Free Mumia.

[x togepi x]

I strongly believe the introduction of expert witnesses is one of the worst things ever to happen in the legal system.

[And Hours Pass]

I strongly believe the introduction of expert witnesses is one of the worst things ever to happen in the legal system.
Would you mind elaborating? I'm interested to hear your opinion on this.

(From what I've seen, you tend to have pretty informed things to say; that's why I'm asking.)

[x togepi x]

Would you mind elaborating? I'm interested to hear your opinion on this.

(From what I've seen, you tend to have pretty informed things to say; that's why I'm asking.)

We've talked about this ad nauseam in my philosophy of law class. The constitution mandates that we have a jury of our peers, ie: amateur jurors picked from the general public to decide cases with little to no legal expertise. They're not experts. In fact, if you know too much, you're often not allowed passed juror selection.

The introduction of expert witnesses creates a system that's easily abused. Since jurors aren't experts, they tend to defer to whatever an expert witness says since "they're the expert." Prosecuting attorneys often use the same expert witnesses in fields for multiple cases. This creates a relationship between DA and expert witness which makes the expert witness quite biased. They get paid because they say what the DA wants them to say to get the conviction. The DA gets to stay in their job because they get convictions. They end up working together.

In cases where the defendant has money, they hire a good lawyer who has a similar relationship with other expert witnesses. This turns the case into pure rhetoric instead of legal fact. Jurors aren't going by who's expert witness is correct, they go by who's expert witness is a better orator or which one looks better in front of the court because they were less effectively attacked by the other side.

In cases where the defendant is poor, they get no expert witness on their side, so the DA gets an easier conviction.

In either case, it's not really justice being served.

[And Hours Pass]

We've talked about this ad nauseam in my philosophy of law class. The constitution mandates that we have a jury of our peers, ie: amateur jurors picked from the general public to decide cases with little to no legal expertise. They're not experts. In fact, if you know too much, you're often not allowed passed juror selection.

The introduction of expert witnesses creates a system that's easily abused. Since jurors aren't experts, they tend to defer to whatever an expert witness says since "they're the expert." Prosecuting attorneys often use the same expert witnesses in fields for multiple cases. This creates a relationship between DA and expert witness which makes the expert witness quite biased. They get paid because they say what the DA wants them to say to get the conviction. The DA gets to stay in their job because they get convictions. They end up working together.

In cases where the defendant has money, they hire a good lawyer who has a similar relationship with other expert witnesses. This turns the case into pure rhetoric instead of legal fact. Jurors aren't going by who's expert witness is correct, they go by who's expert witness is a better orator or which one looks better in front of the court because they were less effectively attacked by the other side.

In cases where the defendant is poor, they get no expert witness on their side, so the DA gets an easier conviction.

In either case, it's not really justice being served.
As I expected, that was a very interesting and thought provoking response! While I'm not informed enough to land on an opinion, I definitely see the points to your argument. Has an alternative been proposed as to how a lawyer can explain a happening (whether it be forensic, psychological, etc...) without using an expert or leading witnesses by injecting their own testimony into their questions? I'm guessing there must be a proposed solution to what sounds like, from your description, a pretty glaring problem.

[open mind]

Not again! Does this mean we're going to see another flood of 15 unrelated political threads where you become infuriated at people "misunderstanding" all the shenanigans that you're posting?


EDIT: I'm very familiar with the group you're referencing. So much so that I would have known that it's "The Innocence Project," and not "The Innocent Project."
i suppose exposing my demons to a wide audience should involve a good amount of ridicule and laughter (from douchebags) at my expense, i hope you won't run the humor into the ground though......oh wait you already did.

yeah, i was aware of the spelling mistake almost immediately and tried to correct it.........but my mac (which i was told wouldn't have such problems bricked itself). now that there are a number of responses to this thread i guess i'll just leave it as is.

back to the topic at hand........the number of courts that refuse to admit dna evidence in appeals is disgusting, and the number of false identifications in wrongful conviction cases ought to seriously call into question the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

[zion the lion]

I thought this was about innocent images.

[open mind]

I thought this was about innocent images.

thanks for the incredibly insightful input.

[x togepi x]

As I expected, that was a very interesting and thought provoking response! While I'm not informed enough to land on an opinion, I definitely see the points to your argument. Has an alternative been proposed as to how a lawyer can explain a happening (whether it be forensic, psychological, etc...) without using an expert or leading witnesses by injecting their own testimony into their questions? I'm guessing there must be a proposed solution to what sounds like, from your description, a pretty glaring problem.

You can attack expert witnesses but when it comes down to the prosecution having one and the defense not,it's pretty hard for a juror to put aside all the prejudices they have when they hear the word "expert." The reason why such solutions probably aren't being discussed is because there's no good political reason. DAs aren't going to want to do it because it gets harder for them to win cases. The good/powerful defense attorneys aren't gong to push for it because they can hire their own experts, which makes them look better so they can make more money.

[And Hours Pass]

You can attack expert witnesses but when it comes down to the prosecution having one and the defense not,it's pretty hard for a juror to put aside all the prejudices they have when they hear the word "expert." The reason why such solutions probably aren't being discussed is because there's no good political reason. DAs aren't going to want to do it because it gets harder for them to win cases. The good/powerful defense attorneys aren't gong to push for it because they can hire their own experts, which makes them look better so they can make more money.
There's not even a public interest group that's taken this on? That seems crazy.

[x togepi x]

There's not even a public interest group that's taken this on? That seems crazy.

I mean, maybe, but since a lot of what goes on the courtroom is dictated by convention, it'd be pretty hard for a group like that to find a way of making an argument against it.

[And Hours Pass]

I mean, maybe, but since a lot of what goes on the courtroom is dictated by convention, it'd be pretty hard for a group like that to find a way of making an argument against it.
Wow. That's pretty disheartening. While I don't necessarily have much interest in becoming a lawyer, whatever class you discussed this in sounds fascinating. Any non-textbook books you would recommend that are layman friendly and discuss these type of issues?

[open mind]

You can attack expert witnesses but when it comes down to the prosecution having one and the defense not,it's pretty hard for a juror to put aside all the prejudices they have when they hear the word "expert." The reason why such solutions probably aren't being discussed is because there's no good political reason. DAs aren't going to want to do it because it gets harder for them to win cases. The good/powerful defense attorneys aren't gong to push for it because they can hire their own experts, which makes them look better so they can make more money.

would you say that i'm resorting to hyperbole if i said a fair trial is reserved for those who can afford it?

[x togepi x]

would you say that i'm resorting to hyperbole if i said a fair trial is reserved for those who can afford it?

no, that seems about right. i used to work for a public defender.

[open mind]

no, that seems about right. i used to work for a public defender.

if only the statistics and scientifically measurable models could be applied to the justice system.......oh wait......it has and it's been shown to systemattically destroy the poor with increased surveliance, an oppressive system of authority, a (what could be seen as) purposeful deprivation of economic oppritunity, and draconian prison sentences that breed further criminal behavior........while sending the rich to rehab, sensitivity training, a warning that they may be left out of the will, and a fine.

the rich rarely commit sex crimes (as they have the ability to throw a couple million bucks at a victim and threaten future job oppritunities) or murder as they have the finances and power to economically destroy a rival or physically destroy them through a government that is complicit to their demands.............and when the public isn't looking they can have millions killed in the name of democracy.......even when those millions killed were people demanding democracy.

i'm of the opinion that the crimes of the rich are viewed as stimulative to the economy and are therefore overlooked, while the crimes of the poor (while being very stimulative to their local economies) are viewed as abominations that must be ripped out from the root before long term growth can be achieved.........this isn't because the poor are of different color as much as it's because the new rich are not at all like the old rich, and thus have totally different priorities to take care of....and what else is an enemy then someone who has a totally different set of priorities then you?