Falsely Convicted People

[TheMike]

I was reading a New York Times article when decided to start a debate on this topic. It may be interesting if a few issues are covered:

• How could the judgements be improved?
• Should there be any punishment for the person or people who falsely convicted someone?
• Go further...

 

[KrazyGlue]

How could the judgements be improved?

I think the rate of false convictions will go down as forensic technology improves. That's all I can say, really.

Should there be any punishment for the person or people who falsely convicted someone?

No. It's a prosecutor's job to convict people, even if they don't think the person did anything wrong.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@question 1

Foresenic evidence has already helped, and has saved several people.

@question 2

Whoever is supposed to verify the person should be executed. They caused the death of an innocent person, and therefore should be punished like a murderer.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

How could the judgements be improved?

I believe the judgements can be made satisfactory by doing a number of things: Making sure that the trials are fair and just. Ensuring that the police don't use harsh methods of interrogation in order to elicit false testimony.

Should there be any punishment for the person or people who falsely convicted someone?

Well, it depends if it's malicious or by accident. If the prosecution does their job, they'll prove the man guilty, but it may be the case that the man isn't guilty, because sometimes the evidence is unclear. In this sort of case, no.

If it's someone trying to frame someone else, it's a different matter. They should have to pay compensation for the time spent in jail, and they should be charged with perjury and/or perverting the course of justice.

Whoever is supposed to verify the person should be executed. They caused the death of an innocent person, and therefore should be punished like a murderer.

Okay, are you saying that all judges that may have sentenced people to death wrongly should be charged? That's not a good idea, it's not their fault, they're making what they see as an appropriate judgement with evidence given. That's all assuming they're not corrupt or anything.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@bob Jane

The verifier killed an innocent person, technically making them a murderer. And what happens to murderers?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@bob Jane

The verifier killed an innocent person, technically making them a murderer. And what happens to murderers?

Are you referring to the judge that sentenced the person? Or someone else? I'm not familiar with the term verifier. I'm going to assume you're referring to the judge or jury.

Well, it's most of the time not their fault. Their job as a jury/judge is to make the best decision given the evidence and they do, which rules the defendant guilty, while the defendant is in fact innocent, then what are they guilty of? Doing their job as a jury, or judge?

Decisions as to whether people are guilty or innocent and whether they deserve punishment a large decisions. And we need people to make them, they won't always be right, yes. However, punishing them for being human is unjust.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Are you referring to the judge that sentenced the person? Or someone else? I'm not familiar with the term verifier. I'm going to assume you're referring to the judge or jury.

By "verifier", I mean whosever job it is to make sure it's the right person they're killing. And remember, that person took the life of an innocent person. Isn't that a murderer?

Decisions as to whether people are guilty or innocent and whether they deserve punishment a large decisions. And we need people to make them, they won't always be right, yes. However, punishing them for being human is unjust.

A judge should not make these life-or-death mistakes. The killing of a person is too big to just say "whoops, I made a mistake".

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

A judge should not make these life-or-death mistakes. The killing of a person is too big to just say "whoops, I made a mistake".

Yes, he shouldn't but he will, he's human, and the evidence isn't always 100% clear. You're asking of these people the impossible, to be perfect or go to jail. The point is, we need people in society to make these sort of decisions, to decide how to punish people, and if you punish them for being human, then nobody would pluck up enough courage to put the livelihoods on the line to make these decisions.

Then what about servicemen and police officers, if they kill people in their line of work, should they get charged, if their doing their job correctly?

Also, that should an argument against the death penalty.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yes, he shouldn't but he will, he's human, and the evidence isn't always 100% clear. You're asking of these people the impossible, to be perfect or go to jail. The point is, we need people in society to make these sort of decisions, to decide how to punish people, and if you punish them for being human, then nobody would pluck up enough courage to put the livelihoods on the line to make these decisions.

You're acting like "whoops, I killed somebody. But I'm just human, so who cares!" How wrong is that?

Then what about servicemen and police officers, if they kill people in their line of work, should they get charged, if their doing their job correctly

Those would probably be guilty people, not innocent people.

Also, that should an argument against the death penalty.

For other punishments, you just put the judge in jail for the amount of time the other person was in jail for.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You're acting like "whoops, I killed somebody. But I'm just human, so who cares!" How wrong is that?

No, I'm acting like: "I did my best to make the right decision, but it wasn't good enough, and you're punishing me for it?"

Or: "I try to be perfect, but I'm not, I'm only human, and you're imprisoning me for it? I know it made a mistake, but it's the best I could do, there's nothing wrong with that right?"

Let's face it, judges don't play around with peoples lives. They try to make the right decision in circumstances that are sometimes very difficult to work in. They can't always though, and that's the problem.

Also, an analogy could be drawn to doctors not saving patients. They wont save everyone's lives, so people will die. Should they be prosecuted?

Those would probably be guilty people, not innocent people.

Yeah, but we need to have exceptions for certain things. There will always be death in war, murder if you will, but should we punish those that put their life on the line and maybe kill others, so that we may live in peace?

For other punishments, you just put the judge in jail for the amount of time the other person was in jail for.

Then who'd be a judge? We'd have nobody prepared to walk this sort of tightrope. Also, I don't believe it'd actually reduce levels of false convictions. The judges aren't malicious, neither are the juries, so it won't change anything, they're just going to be a whole lot more nervous in making their decisions.

Or alternatively, they'd never rule guilty, for fear of causing false imprisonment, do you think being in such a situation would be beneficial to society?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

No, I'm acting like: "I did my best to make the right decision, but it wasn't good enough, and you're punishing me for it?"

Or: "I try to be perfect, but I'm not, I'm only human, and you're imprisoning me for it? I know it made a mistake, but it's the best I could do, there's nothing wrong with that right?"

"I'm not perfect, so it's okay that this person dies". That's prcticaly what you just said.

Let's face it, judges don't play around with peoples lives. They try to make the right decision in circumstances that are sometimes very difficult to work in. They can't always though, and that's the problem.

They should be able to.

Also, an analogy could be drawn to doctors not saving patients. They wont save everyone's lives, so people will die. Should they be prosecuted?

No, but that's because the patient was already going to die. Not the case here.

Yeah, but we need to have exceptions for certain things. There will always be death in war, murder if you will, but should we punish those that put their life on the line and maybe kill others, so that we may live in peace?

Which is exactly why war is horrible. You're purposely putting innocent people's life on the line. War is bad, and so is this.

Then who'd be a judge? We'd have nobody prepared to walk this sort of tightrope. Also, I don't believe it'd actually reduce levels of false convictions. The judges aren't malicious, neither are the juries, so it won't change anything, they're just going to be a whole lot more nervous in making their decisions.

It'll tell them to check their work more.

Or alternatively, they'd never rule guilty, for fear of causing false imprisonment, do you think being in such a situation would be beneficial to society?

There are some cases where it is obvious where the person is guilty. Not every case is hard to decide.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It is wrong to administer capital punishment for professional misjudgment.

(a) Legal trials are hardly formulated and concluded by the judge alone. Often times it is a composite performance consisting of a jury, a plaintiff, a defendant, a jury, a forensic team, law enforcement, witnesses, and individuals willing to testify. In such a case where evidence is gathered from various sources, missing facts and mistakes in interpretation could occur from all participants which could lead to a faulty decision on the part of the judge. Thus it is not fair to implicate a judge on this factor alone. Neither is it fair to place blame on any of the individual constituents or the individuals as a collective whole. It is especially difficult, as outlined in the OP's starting article when these forces create the defendant to admit to a false positive, a situation that parallels the ineffectiveness of waterboarding as a method of torture. In the NYT article, the judge was conflicted as he was presented with the defendant admitting to a crime he did not really commit. When such an incident occurs, it is difficult to place blame on the judge as it is not his duty to represent the defendant but to make an informed decision based on the information presented in the case.

(b) According to status quo, professional mistakes do not equate to life punishments. When a company creates a defective product, they do not serve out a number of years in jail in order to learn their lesson. A monetary cost is usually extracted from their income which can be generalized as professional punishment. In the same sense, malpractice lawsuits against doctors are created in order to punish a mistake they may have made in terms of work. Capital punishment has been administered in the past for criminals who have intentionally gone out with the intention to kill and/or harm the well-being of another individual (i.e. Ted Bundy). To equate the consequences of a profession in medicine or law to intentionally murdering an innocent would be unfair to the accused as the decision would go unprecedented and also misrepresent the current attitude of what modern society perceives as fair punishment.

(c) Atul Gawade is a surgeon who writes, “If you plotted a graph showing the results of all the centers treating cystic fibrosis- or any other disease, for that matter- people expected that the curve would look something like a shark fin… with most places clustered around the very best oucomes. But the evidence has begun to indicate otherwise. What you tend to find instead is a bell curve with a handful of teams showing disturbingly poor outcomes for their patients, a handful obtaining remarkably good results, and a great undistinguished middle... The bell curve is distressing for doctors to have to acknowledge. It belies the promise that we make to patients: that they can count on the medical system to give them their very best chance. It also contradicts the belief nearly all of us have that we are doing our job as well as it can be done.”

The system for cystic fibrosis care is more sophisticated in comparison to other diseases after LeRoy Matthews spearheaded a CF medical crusade. Patients receive care in one of 117 ultraspecialized centers across the country which have a rigorous certification process and excellent doctors. The doctors participate in research trials to figure out new and better treatments. With superior care and a stringency to follow protocol, one would expect similar results from all the hospitals according to their close adherence to CF protocol. But the mortality rates and the patient conditions vary considerably.

Atul Gawande in his book, Better, points out that no matter how hard a doctor strives to become a better practioner, there are certain conditions and diseases where they must settle for average. As responsible individuals, we like to insist that our hard work and determination matters. Life doesn’t always operate based on those standards. Even the best people get fired, make mistakes, and kill people even though they did everything right.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

(a) Legal trials are hardly formulated and concluded by the judge alone. Often times it is a composite performance consisting of a jury, a plaintiff, a defendant, a jury, a forensic team, law enforcement, witnesses, and individuals willing to testify. In such a case where evidence is gathered from various sources, missing facts and mistakes in interpretation could occur from all participants which could lead to a faulty decision on the part of the judge. Thus it is not fair to implicate a judge on this factor alone. Neither is it fair to place blame on any of the individual constituents or the individuals as a collective whole. It is especially difficult, as outlined in the OP's starting article when these forces create the defendant to admit to a false positive, a situation that parallels the ineffectiveness of waterboarding as a method of torture. In the NYT article, the judge was conflicted as he was presented with the defendant admitting to a crime he did not really commit. When such an incident occurs, it is difficult to place blame on the judge as it is not his duty to represent the defendant but to make an informed decision based on the information presented in the case.

I never said "the judge", I said whoever the verifier is.

(b) According to status quo, professional mistakes do not equate to life punishments. When a company creates a defective product, they do not serve out a number of years in jail in order to learn their lesson. A monetary cost is usually extracted from their income which can be generalized as professional punishment. In the same sense, malpractice lawsuits against doctors are created in order to punish a mistake they may have made in terms of work. Capital punishment has been administered in the past for criminals who have intentionally gone out with the intention to kill and/or harm the well-being of another individual (i.e. Ted Bundy).

The life of a human is very different than a defective toy.

To equate the consequences of a profession in medicine or law to intentionally murdering an innocent would be unfair to the accused as the decision would go unprecedented and also misrepresent the current attitude of what modern society perceives as fair punishment.

If you're talking about when a doctor cannot save a patient, that's different. There, a patient would have died with the help, but an innocent person falsely accused would've kept living if the trial never happened.

Atul Gawande in his book, Better, points out that no matter how hard a doctor strives to become a better practioner, there are certain conditions and diseases where they must settle for average. As responsible individuals, we like to insist that our hard work and determination matters. Life doesn’t always operate based on those standards.

Similar to Bob Jane, you seem to be along the lines of "well, we all make mistakes". The life of a human

Even the best people get fired, make mistakes, and kill people even though they did everything right.

Show me a example.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I never said "the judge", I said whoever the verifier is.

"By "verifier", I mean whosever job it is to make sure it's the right person they're killing. And remember, that person took the life of an innocent person. Isn't that a murderer?"

"The Verifier" sounds like some fictional Judge Dredd character who serves as judge, jury, and executioner. If you are not talking about a "judge" then I am at a loss to argue with a fictional construct that has loose definitions and exists in a figurative plane of existence inside your mind. If you are alluding to "judges" then allow me to rephrase my response.

(a) Legal trials are hardly formulated and concluded by a designated "Verifier". Often times it is a composite performance consisting of a judge, a jury, a plaintiff, a defendant, a forensic team, law enforcement, witnesses, and individuals willing to testify. Evidence is gathered from various sources, missing facts and mistakes in interpretation could occur from all participants which could lead to a faulty decision on the part of the "Verifier". Thus it is not fair to implicate the "Verifier" on this factor alone. Neither is it fair to place blame on any of the individual constituents or the individuals as a collective whole who might be considered "Verifiers". It is especially difficult, as outlined in the OP's starting article when these forces create the defendant to admit to a false positive, a situation that parallels the ineffectiveness of waterboarding as a method of torture. In the NYT article, the judge was conflicted as he was presented with the defendant admitting to a crime he did not really commit. When such an incident occurs, it is difficult to place blame on the "Verifier" as it is not his duty to represent the defendant but to make an informed decision based on the information presented in the case.

The life of a human is very different than a defective toy.

You're absolutely right. The life of a human is very different than that of a defective toy. Therefore the answer isn't to administer capital punishment / life sentences for more individuals than necessary. Especially when you are seeking to punish professional mistakes which is not appropriate because it does not parallel people who INTENTIONALLY kill other people such as Ted Bundy. If we are going to ignore the status quo, then we are dealing with a fictional society that has a fictional government and fictional "Verifiers" walking around and administering hard-handed justice. Examining intention is a critical contention in convicting an individual.

(b) According to status quo, professional mistakes do not equate to life punishments. When a company creates a defective product, they do not serve out a number of years in jail in order to learn their lesson. A monetary cost is usually extracted from their income which can be generalized as professional punishment. In the same sense, malpractice lawsuits against doctors are created in order to punish a mistake they may have made in terms of work. Capital punishment has been administered in the past for criminals who have intentionally gone out with the intention to kill and/or harm the well-being of another individual (i.e. Ted Bundy).

If you're talking about when a doctor cannot save a patient, that's different. There, a patient would have died with the help, but an innocent person falsely accused would've kept living if the trial never happened.

Everyone is dying, if you didn't receive vaccines and antibodies your immune system wouldn't be highly trained or attuned to fight off infectious microorganisms. Doctors have a professional responsibility to consider the quality and length of life of their patients. If all people can be considered patients, then I would agree that everyone could die without any help from a doctor. Therefore it is a doctor's job to prevent that consequence from happening and should be evaluated on such principles just as a judge or "Verifier" would be professionally incriminated based on his abilities of deduction from a set of given facts presented in a trial.

I can't refute your second point because it is a theoretical stretch of fiction. A society where accusations can be made, yet no trial to be had sounds roughly like a state of anarchy. Again I am attempting to argue off of an existing system so that I can at least hope that we touch upon common ground.

Similar to Bob Jane, you seem to be along the lines of "well, we all make mistakes". The life of a human... Show me a example.

Unlike Bob Jane I bothered to elaborate further and explain that even the best professionals who do everything right, still have bad consequences. You missed the CF example that I posted before, so I'll re-post it again for your convenience with an added paragraph explanation at the end.

“If you plotted a graph showing the results of all the centers treating cystic fibrosis- or any other disease, for that matter- people expected that the curve would look something like a shark fin… with most places clustered around the very best oucomes. But the evidence has begun to indicate otherwise. What you tend to find instead is a bell curve with a handful of teams showing disturbingly poor outcomes for their patients, a handful obtaining remarkably good results, and a great undistinguished middle... The bell curve is distressing for doctors to have to acknowledge. It belies the promise that we make to patients: that they can count on the medical system to give them their very best chance. It also contradicts the belief nearly all of us have that we are doing our job as well as it can be done.”

The system for cystic fibrosis care is more sophisticated in comparison to other diseases after LeRoy Matthews spearheaded a CF medical crusade. Patients receive care in one of 117 ultraspecialized centers across the country which have a rigorous certification process and excellent doctors. The doctors participate in research trials to figure out new and better treatments. With superior care and a stringency to follow protocol, one would expect similar results from all the hospitals according to their close adherence to CF protocol. But the mortality rates and the patient conditions vary considerably.

Having the best trained individuals following the same guidelines in order to treat CF in patients resulted in having highly varied results. Associating the variable results to the differing conditions of the patients does not result in strong correlation when the information was examined with mortality rates. Even the best people get fired, make mistakes, and kill people even though they did everything right.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

1. Regular
2. I get that a lot
3. WTF?
4. You're on something.

My response to your quote titles.

I'll answer when i'm not in a haste.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

"I'm not perfect, so it's okay that this person dies". That's prcticaly what you just said.

Is it? That's a strawman. It's not okay that people die because others make mistakes, but it happens. We can reduce that with things like, removing the death penalty, as opposed to punishing those that get something wrong.

We shouldn't punish those who make such mistakes because doing so would be crazy. If they're not malicious, negligent, fraudulent etc. then what have they done wrong? Nothing.

You're asking the legal system, involving many thousands of people, from the lowest magistrate to the highest Chief Justice to be 100% correct, 100% of the time. Are you aware of how large an ask that is?

And then after that you proceed to say that anyone who fails to be 100% correct 100% of the time, should be thrown in jail, for their crime of not being perfect. I believe that this is slightly ridiculous.

And then what if new evidence arises that the "verifier" didn't know about, that proves that the person the "verifier" convicted was completely innocent? Does the "verifier" get convicted, even though he made the right decision in the circumstances? Or are we going to punish him for not being able to see into the future?

They should be able to.

Key word there is should. But they can't always.

No, but that's because the patient was already going to die. Not the case here.

Really, so doctors and medical professionals don't make mistakes? What about Jayant Patel? He was incompetent. There are plenty of doctors who are competent make mistakes.

Which is exactly why war is horrible. You're purposely putting innocent people's life on the line. War is bad, and so is this.

Purposely? What if you're country is invaded? You have to defend yourself; and casualties will result.

It'll tell them to check their work more.

That's it, just "work harder"? To some of the most knowledgeable, impartial and just men in the world? They'd resign. When you're gambling with these sorts of stakes, with no reward, you'd better pull out as fast as you can. If there's no conceivable method of attaining perfection, then being reasonable men, I'm sure they'd protest and resign.

There are some cases where it is obvious where the person is guilty. Not every case is hard to decide.

Actually, it wouldn't be, considering that their lives/careers/livelihoods are always hanging on the line.

How do you expect these people to make clear decisions, when they're ***** are on the line? I get nervous standing up in front of a crowd talking, it clouds my judgement and I might make more mistakes than usual. With these guys, you're putting the rest of their lives at stake, they've already got enough to worry about, considering somebody else's life is at stake.

I never said "the judge", I said whoever the verifier is.

Can you give me an example of this verifier? What is a verifier? The prosecution? The defence solicitor? The judge? The jury? Or some wild amalgamation of the lot.

If you're talking about when a doctor cannot save a patient, that's different. There, a patient would have died with the help, but an innocent person falsely accused would've kept living if the trial never happened.

They're not really that different. We're saying that if everyone did everything perfectly, the patient would have survived. We're also saying that the defendant would receive the right sentence and verdict if everything went perfectly. It's pretty much the same, one man's mistake, one man's life.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Whoever is supposed to verify the person should be executed. They caused the death of an innocent person, and therefore should be punished like a murderer.

Well, I don't know what you mean by who "verifies" them. The judge gives the verdict, but does not choose whether the person is guilty at all, so it's not always their fault. The jury decides that. And if you would propose that all twelve of the jury should be killed, I would assert that that is an absurd idea for what should be obvious reasons. If need be, I will explain the reasoning.

I apologize, I haven't read every post in the thread like I probably should have. So please excuse my ignorance if I bring up a point that has already been addressed.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

There's a huge hole in my point: I honestly don't know who the verifier is, and if there is't one, then nobody should get killed because of the false accusation..

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sorry, but could you please clarify who the "verifier" is?

These are the people who contribute to the sentencing of the defendant:

The judge determines what punishment there should be for the crime, given that the jury decides they are guilty.

The jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not.

The prosecutor tries to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Sorry, but could you please clarify who the "verifier" is? These are the people who contribute to the sentencing of the defendant: The judge determines what punishment there should be for the crime, given that the jury decides they are guilty. The jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not. The prosecutor tries to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty.

Discussed in post #12 (a).

Well, I don't know what you mean by who "verifies" them. The judge gives the verdict, but does not choose whether the person is guilty at all, so it's not always their fault. The jury decides that. And if you would propose that all twelve of the jury should be killed, I would assert that that is an absurd idea for what should be obvious reasons. If need be, I will explain the reasoning. I apologize, I haven't read every post in the thread like I probably should have. So please excuse my ignorance if I bring up a point that has already been addressed.

Discussed in post #12 and post #14 with explained reasoning of why such a punishment wouldn't be a justified idea.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah, I lost. I'm on a losing streak now...

 

[Mediocre]

Dark Horse, there are more flaws in your argument than just

If I'm driving along the highway, and someone jumps over the guardrail and runs out in front of me and I can't stop in time to avoid hitting them, should I be executed?

According to your current position, the answer should be "yes".

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@mediocre

1. In your argument, it's the person's fault he/she died. Is that the case here?

2. That would be like a person being sent to jail without a trail. The decision is forced.

3. That would be an accident that you did not cause and it can't be stopped.