This is a long but good article about Elizabeth Loftus and her work. She is one of the most important researchers into memory who proved how infallible memory is and how easy it is to implant false memories and how we change our own memory over time. It really illustrates why eye witness identification is unreliable and why someone being sure or unsure about something really doesn't change how likely they are to be right.
In some cases they are convinced this is the person. Absolutely. There is no doubt whatsoever. That is the person who *committed X offense*, and they will swear on a thousand bibles that is the case.
And they are wrong.
Then the witness should be blamed for their part in the miscarriage of justice. Because if you absolutely believe something that's factually incorrect, then by definition you're basing your belief on something other than fact. And we shouldn't be sending people to prison based on non-factual evidence.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine because they "know" that the only true way to cure illness is through prayer, and that child dies, there's no way I'm holding the parent blameless for the child's death.
In some cases they are convinced this is the person. Absolutely. There is no doubt whatsoever. That is the person who *committed X offense*, and they will swear on a thousand bibles that is the case.
And they are wrong.
Then the witness should be blamed for their part in the miscarriage of justice. Because if you absolutely believe something that's factually incorrect, then by definition you're basing your belief on something other than fact. And we shouldn't be sending people to prison based on non-factual evidence.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine because they "know" that the only true way to cure illness is through prayer, and that child dies, there's no way I'm holding the parent blameless for the child's death.
The problem is though if you were in that situation you would probably be sure too. This isn't some small percent of people. From the article above
Police lineups worsened this confusion. In another experiment, after watching a mock crime, subjects were offered a lineup that didn't include the perpetrator. One-third of them picked somebody anyway. But when the cops conveyed extra confidence—"We have the culprit and he's in the lineup"—78 percent of the subjects picked somebody.
78% of people picked someone. While it is nice to imagine in that situation you or I would do differently, probably we wouldn't.
In some cases they are convinced this is the person. Absolutely. There is no doubt whatsoever. That is the person who *committed X offense*, and they will swear on a thousand bibles that is the case.
And they are wrong.
Then the witness should be blamed for their part in the miscarriage of justice. Because if you absolutely believe something that's factually incorrect, then by definition you're basing your belief on something other than fact. And we shouldn't be sending people to prison based on non-factual evidence.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine because they "know" that the only true way to cure illness is through prayer, and that child dies, there's no way I'm holding the parent blameless for the child's death.
The problem is though if you were in that situation you would probably be sure too. This isn't some small percent of people. From the article above
Police lineups worsened this confusion. In another experiment, after watching a mock crime, subjects were offered a lineup that didn't include the perpetrator. One-third of them picked somebody anyway. But when the cops conveyed extra confidence—"We have the culprit and he's in the lineup"—78 percent of the subjects picked somebody.
78% of people picked someone. While it is nice to imagine in that situation you or I would do differently, probably we wouldn't.
Maybe the reason we're so willy-nilly in tossing around false identifications is that there's no penalty for getting it wrong.
It's like taking the SAT: there's no penalty for wrong answers, so if you don't know, just guess.
as shallow and as pathetic as it sounds, Money really is the only way that you can compensate these poor people who have to spend years, decades even, in a hyper-violent pressure cooker, with the knowledge that they were innocent.
That destroys men. Sure the state could offer to cover the cost of seeing any psychiatrist or therapist that they want to see, but thats still just a monetary compensation for the wrongs of the state.
THeres really nothing else the state can do, They cant turn back time, give you relationships back, etc. All it can do is give you buckets of money and hope you don't crack from going from a life in a hole where you had no control over anything, to total and absolute freedom with more money than you'd ever thought possible.
Buttcleft on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
In some cases they are convinced this is the person. Absolutely. There is no doubt whatsoever. That is the person who *committed X offense*, and they will swear on a thousand bibles that is the case.
And they are wrong.
Then the witness should be blamed for their part in the miscarriage of justice. Because if you absolutely believe something that's factually incorrect, then by definition you're basing your belief on something other than fact. And we shouldn't be sending people to prison based on non-factual evidence.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine because they "know" that the only true way to cure illness is through prayer, and that child dies, there's no way I'm holding the parent blameless for the child's death.
In both scenarios the government should step in and simply not accept that a belief alone is enough of a reason to imprison someone or withholding necessary medication from someone.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine then the government need to step in and give the medicine to the child. I recently read a case about a couple in Australia where they had said no to a crucial surgery on their newborn and as a result their child was rightly taken away from them and adopted away.
Now if it turns out that the parent kept their sick child in secret and is later found out dead then they should definitely be blamed for child's death.
Those damn rape victims not being able to identify their attacker correctly! How dare they! Seriously, you're getting pretty victim blamey here. At the end of the day some amount of innocent people are going to get put into prison, it is just a sad fact of life. When it happens they absolutely should get job placement and other services so they can reintegrate, but a monetary payment should only happen in cases where someone messed up, which is not all the time.
I'm not certain what you're saying here. If someone is wrongfully convicted, didn't someone mess up by definition?
No. Absolute certainty is not required to convict. In this case the witnesses identified him and the best available blood test pointed to him. Everyone did their jobs correctly and sadly, that still resulted in this man being wrongfully convicted. In a hospital someone can die who might have been able to have been saved if everything was better, but that doesn't necessarily make it malpractice.
Monetary payments are of course not victim blaming, I was referring to Regina accusing the rape victim as being complicit in sending an innocent man to prison who deserves no sympathy.
You're saying that monetary payments to the wrongfully convicted should hinge on whether or not blame can be lain, I'm saying they shouldn't. I'm saying the blame is a separate thing- possibly a trial. But the compensation for a wrongfully convicted person should depend only on them being wrongfully convicted.
If Joe receives a fair trial where everyone performed to the best of their ability and is wrongfully sentenced to ten years, he should be compensated the same as Bob, who also served ten years after receiving a shitty trial where there was misconduct and incompetence. The difference is that the people who convicted Bob are liable. In both cases, there was clearly and by definition a mistake.
OK, I understand this attitude but I disagree with it. I think that if everyone is doing their job then a lump sum payment should not happen. Note that I think there should still be support of some kind so that this person can adjust, if they are damaged enough by their experiences in prison this support may have to last the rest of their life but in general we need better social saftey nets for everyone. Monetary compensation to me implies that someone acted wrongly and I think should be avoided for the same reason a hospital does not give money to the family of everyone who dies who could have been saved if there is no actual malpractice.
I didn't see anyone specifically address this so I this so I thought I would.
I absolutely think a wrongfully convicted person is due compensation for the wrongful withholding of, well, their life basically. In a case where there was no legal mistakes made I guess if one is hell bent on placing blame, the ultimate mistake then lies at the feet of the jury who are acting on behalf of society. Even if they didn't make a mistake, even if there's no way they could have known they were making a mistake- the jury was still wrong.
Ultimately to me though it's not about who's fault the mistake was or who to blame for it, it's about one of my fellow citizens wrongfully having their life taken away from them by the legal system that's in place to protect us all and that we all benefit from.
Those damn rape victims not being able to identify their attacker correctly! How dare they! Seriously, you're getting pretty victim blamey here. At the end of the day some amount of innocent people are going to get put into prison, it is just a sad fact of life. When it happens they absolutely should get job placement and other services so they can reintegrate, but a monetary payment should only happen in cases where someone messed up, which is not all the time.
I'm not certain what you're saying here. If someone is wrongfully convicted, didn't someone mess up by definition?
No. Absolute certainty is not required to convict. In this case the witnesses identified him and the best available blood test pointed to him. Everyone did their jobs correctly and sadly, that still resulted in this man being wrongfully convicted. In a hospital someone can die who might have been able to have been saved if everything was better, but that doesn't necessarily make it malpractice.
Monetary payments are of course not victim blaming, I was referring to Regina accusing the rape victim as being complicit in sending an innocent man to prison who deserves no sympathy.
You're saying that monetary payments to the wrongfully convicted should hinge on whether or not blame can be lain, I'm saying they shouldn't. I'm saying the blame is a separate thing- possibly a trial. But the compensation for a wrongfully convicted person should depend only on them being wrongfully convicted.
If Joe receives a fair trial where everyone performed to the best of their ability and is wrongfully sentenced to ten years, he should be compensated the same as Bob, who also served ten years after receiving a shitty trial where there was misconduct and incompetence. The difference is that the people who convicted Bob are liable. In both cases, there was clearly and by definition a mistake.
OK, I understand this attitude but I disagree with it. I think that if everyone is doing their job then a lump sum payment should not happen. Note that I think there should still be support of some kind so that this person can adjust, if they are damaged enough by their experiences in prison this support may have to last the rest of their life but in general we need better social saftey nets for everyone. Monetary compensation to me implies that someone acted wrongly and I think should be avoided for the same reason a hospital does not give money to the family of everyone who dies who could have been saved if there is no actual malpractice.
I'm not grasping why this should be the case. Keep in mind I really don't want to come across as hostile to your point of view- I just don't understand it.
The medical analogue works when you're looking at the immense responsibility of being a doctor/lawyer/judge. It falls apart when you try to compare medicine to law because attempting to save someone and failing is fundamentally different from wrongfully convicting someone. When you wrongfully convict someone, you don't just fail to defend their rights, you actively take away from their life. This is about what is owed to the person who was wronged. A doctor owes their patient the best job they can do; by giving it their best go, they fulfill their responsibility. The justice system owes the individual, all individuals, justice.
Look back at my example: you're saying that Bob should receive compensation and Joe shouldn't. Why should monetary compensation to the victim depend on the nature of the error that left them wrongfully convicted?
Let's say we perfect the legal system to be as fair as possible, and screen legal professionals such that no one will ever be unqualified and no one will ever commit misconduct. Errors will still occur, we will put people away by mistake, for what seems like good reason. Why shouldn't we pay them back?
OK, I understand this attitude but I disagree with it. I think that if everyone is doing their job then a lump sum payment should not happen. Note that I think there should still be support of some kind so that this person can adjust, if they are damaged enough by their experiences in prison this support may have to last the rest of their life but in general we need better social saftey nets for everyone. Monetary compensation to me implies that someone acted wrongly and I think should be avoided for the same reason a hospital does not give money to the family of everyone who dies who could have been saved if there is no actual malpractice.
Someone did act wrongly. Namely, as a collective, us. And now we should have to pay for that mistake.
We have designed every aspect of the justice system and given it our full approval for use - we've decided that witness testimony is good enough to stand as evidence (in spite of being repeatedly told by experts that witness testimony is incredibly terrible at providing accurate information), we've decided how jailed persons should be treated and we've decided what the maximum penalties should be.
As a result of those consciously made choices, a man was effectively kidnapped at gunpoint by the state and robbed of more than two decades of his life.
I think the state should compensate him fully (the suggestions made by Syndalis sound reasonable to me) and the state should then rigorously investigate how the miscarriage occurred and how to prevent future miscarriages. In this case, I think it's pretty clear-cut: we need to stop using witness testimony as evidence.
Posts
Then the witness should be blamed for their part in the miscarriage of justice. Because if you absolutely believe something that's factually incorrect, then by definition you're basing your belief on something other than fact. And we shouldn't be sending people to prison based on non-factual evidence.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine because they "know" that the only true way to cure illness is through prayer, and that child dies, there's no way I'm holding the parent blameless for the child's death.
The problem is though if you were in that situation you would probably be sure too. This isn't some small percent of people. From the article above 78% of people picked someone. While it is nice to imagine in that situation you or I would do differently, probably we wouldn't.
Maybe the reason we're so willy-nilly in tossing around false identifications is that there's no penalty for getting it wrong.
It's like taking the SAT: there's no penalty for wrong answers, so if you don't know, just guess.
as shallow and as pathetic as it sounds, Money really is the only way that you can compensate these poor people who have to spend years, decades even, in a hyper-violent pressure cooker, with the knowledge that they were innocent.
That destroys men. Sure the state could offer to cover the cost of seeing any psychiatrist or therapist that they want to see, but thats still just a monetary compensation for the wrongs of the state.
THeres really nothing else the state can do, They cant turn back time, give you relationships back, etc. All it can do is give you buckets of money and hope you don't crack from going from a life in a hole where you had no control over anything, to total and absolute freedom with more money than you'd ever thought possible.
The SAT does have a guessing penalty.
I don't think the criminal justice system should.
In both scenarios the government should step in and simply not accept that a belief alone is enough of a reason to imprison someone or withholding necessary medication from someone.
If a parent doesn't give their sick child medicine then the government need to step in and give the medicine to the child. I recently read a case about a couple in Australia where they had said no to a crucial surgery on their newborn and as a result their child was rightly taken away from them and adopted away.
Now if it turns out that the parent kept their sick child in secret and is later found out dead then they should definitely be blamed for child's death.
I didn't see anyone specifically address this so I this so I thought I would.
I absolutely think a wrongfully convicted person is due compensation for the wrongful withholding of, well, their life basically. In a case where there was no legal mistakes made I guess if one is hell bent on placing blame, the ultimate mistake then lies at the feet of the jury who are acting on behalf of society. Even if they didn't make a mistake, even if there's no way they could have known they were making a mistake- the jury was still wrong.
Ultimately to me though it's not about who's fault the mistake was or who to blame for it, it's about one of my fellow citizens wrongfully having their life taken away from them by the legal system that's in place to protect us all and that we all benefit from.
I'm not grasping why this should be the case. Keep in mind I really don't want to come across as hostile to your point of view- I just don't understand it.
The medical analogue works when you're looking at the immense responsibility of being a doctor/lawyer/judge. It falls apart when you try to compare medicine to law because attempting to save someone and failing is fundamentally different from wrongfully convicting someone. When you wrongfully convict someone, you don't just fail to defend their rights, you actively take away from their life. This is about what is owed to the person who was wronged. A doctor owes their patient the best job they can do; by giving it their best go, they fulfill their responsibility. The justice system owes the individual, all individuals, justice.
Look back at my example: you're saying that Bob should receive compensation and Joe shouldn't. Why should monetary compensation to the victim depend on the nature of the error that left them wrongfully convicted?
Let's say we perfect the legal system to be as fair as possible, and screen legal professionals such that no one will ever be unqualified and no one will ever commit misconduct. Errors will still occur, we will put people away by mistake, for what seems like good reason. Why shouldn't we pay them back?
Someone did act wrongly. Namely, as a collective, us. And now we should have to pay for that mistake.
We have designed every aspect of the justice system and given it our full approval for use - we've decided that witness testimony is good enough to stand as evidence (in spite of being repeatedly told by experts that witness testimony is incredibly terrible at providing accurate information), we've decided how jailed persons should be treated and we've decided what the maximum penalties should be.
As a result of those consciously made choices, a man was effectively kidnapped at gunpoint by the state and robbed of more than two decades of his life.
I think the state should compensate him fully (the suggestions made by Syndalis sound reasonable to me) and the state should then rigorously investigate how the miscarriage occurred and how to prevent future miscarriages. In this case, I think it's pretty clear-cut: we need to stop using witness testimony as evidence.