Why treat prisoners humanely?

[Fletch]

Because the evidence is mounting, year after year, that the entire system is badly broken. It started a few years ago with the investigative report on Dr. Stephen Hayne, a forensic medical examiner in Mississippi:

CSI: Mississippi - Reason Magazine

Later on, the federal government's assessment of forensic science in criminal cases was less than encouraging:

In Criminal Cases, Should Science Only Serve the State? - Reason Magazine

And now the latest comes to us from North Carolina:

North Carolina's Corrupted Crime Lab - Reason Magazine

And there are many more examples linked in the first article.

At some point, the many disparate pieces of data have to stop being seen as anecdotal and start being seen as an endemic pattern. How many of these does a person need to read before the change happens? How many of us are actually looking at this evidence critically? What does it take for a person to see this growing mountain of evidence and place a little less faith in the finality of the system and a little more skepticism in the premise that the government is only here to help?

Without being personally involved in each and every case, it's impossible for us as citizens to know who is truly guilty (and they certainly exist) and who is innocent but has been railroaded by a system that is somewhere between grossly incompetent and outright corrupt (and they certainly exist as well). Why then, is it such an imposition to try and afford the incarcerated a basic modicum of human dignity? Recognizing that with its focus on conviction over truth, the steamroller of government can crush any of us, guilty or not, is it so necessary that we spend so much time playing little games of oneupsmanship over who can come up with the most abusive way to house our prisoners?

Perhaps more to the point, isn't it about time we recognize that the system is in serious need of reform, and that "trusting the system to work" is increasingly a statement rooted in foolish ignorance?

 

[IndyMonkey]

I would say the system is the same as its always been.

The only difference is that now if a person is wrongly convicted in Hoboken, the people of Redding read about it.

 

[Eddie]

I think that a symptom or at least a part of the problem is how we define success within the criminal justice system. Is an arrest inherently better than an investigation in which the investigating officer decides not to arrest? Is a trial that ends in a finding of "Not Guilty" neccessarily a loss for the state?

When we keep score and base awards and promotions on putting people in jail as opposed to objectively investigating then a higher percentage of innocent or at least not guilty people are going to end up behind bars.

 

[level.eleven]

I would say the system is the same as its always been.

The only difference is that now if a person is wrongly convicted in Hoboken, the people of Redding read about it.

Does it make the government's actions in Hoboken any less egregious because fewer people knew about it? Is the level of acceptable tyranny proportional to the number of citizens that learn about said actions?

 

[level.eleven]

I think that a symptom or at least a part of the problem is how we define success within the criminal justice system. Is an arrest inherently better than an investigation in which the investigating officer decides not to arrest? Is a trial that ends in a finding of "Not Guilty" neccessarily a loss for the state?

When we keep score and base awards and promotions on putting people in jail as opposed to objectively investigating then a higher percentage of innocent or at least not guilty people are going to end up behind bars.

I believe that you are alluding to policing for profit. Yes, that is a major problem with modern day, created by man, code enforcement.

 

[Eddie]

I believe that you are alluding to policing for profit. Yes, that is a major problem with modern day, created by man, code enforcement.

Profit is a part of it. It is always tempting to try to reduce a complex problem down to a simple solution but I think that there are many facets to what Fletch talked about in his OP.

Any time there is a reward; money, kudos, promotion, fame, what have you, the reward has the potential to skew the investigation. A "gateway" approach to the problem of innocent people winding up in jail would be to take away any rewards based on volume or type of arrest.

No two cases are ever the same. Law Enforcement is often done in the gray areas where it is uncertain whether or not a crime has been committed. It should be just as laudible to decline to arrest as it is to place the cuffs on a bad guy so long as the objectivity of the investigation is preserved. Likewise a prosecutor who declines to prosecute a case should be perceived as serving justice just as much as a prosecutor who zealously pursues a case.

Again, this is only one facet of a complex problem.

 

[Fletch]

The part that really burns me is the suborning of science for agenda. Science is supposed to be about finding the truth no matter where it leads, and that's how forensic science is sold to the masses via shows like CSI and NCIS. The investigations reveal a far uglier truth in witness coaching and outright evidence fraud. I can't quote relevant passages here for fear of running afoul of the new rules, but they're pretty easy to find for anyone who has a genuine interest.

 

[Eddie]

The part that really burns me is the suborning of science for agenda. Science is supposed to be about finding the truth no matter where it leads, and that's how forensic science is sold to the masses via shows like CSI and NCIS. The investigations reveal a far uglier truth in witness coaching and outright evidence fraud. I can't quote relevant passages here for fear of running afoul of the new rules, but they're pretty easy to find for anyone who has a genuine interest.

I will give you a case in point. A friend of mine was a detective. A woman complained that she had been raped. He investigated. He turned up a videotape of the alledged incident. The videotape pretty conclusively defeated her claim of rape and in fact appeared to show that her claim was false. She was charged with false informing.

My buddy endured a s***storm of bad press and complaints for doing what the facts said to do. He caught heat politically and in the media. Why? Rape was a hot button issue and a false report of rape looked bad for the powers that be at the time. Never mind that he conducted an honest investigation and applied the law to the facts; he got villified in the media for following the law.

The job of the police and the prosecutor should be to find the truth. It should be just as honorable to drop charges as to file them.

 

[dross]

The idea you can be convicted by bad or corrupt science is one aspect of injustice. Another is that so many times you can't just commit one crime, but that one act can result in stacks of charges that can add up to a very large sentence. Then that is used to bargain to get a plea and conviction. A guy is facing 25 years if he goes to trial, and a couple of of years if he pleads guilty.

I have some close friends whose son has been convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. It was a he said/she said. I don't know what the objective truth is, but I know he was facing three years if he pled guilty. He was convicted and is now serving 80 something years. He refused to plead guilty against the advice of his attorney because he said he won't say he did something he didn't do. Again, I don't know this guy or his stepdaughter, so I have no opinion as to his guilt.

Here's the thing, though. If he's truly a bad enough criminal that he must die in jail (he's in his forties) with an extremely long sentence, why was the prosecutor willing to make a deal that would let him out in three? There's something fundamentally wrong, I think.

There's a myth out there in popular culture that the criminals have the advantage in the system, and they're getting off on "technicalities" right and left. The hidden truth is that the defendant has few resources and the state's resources are nearly unlimited. It's interesting to consider the people convicted who were innocent. I wonder how many innocent people have been bullied into pleading their own selves into jail because they didn't want to spin the roulette wheel against house odds?

 

[downzero]

I would say the system is the same as its always been.

The only difference is that now if a person is wrongly convicted in Hoboken, the people of Redding read about it.

I would say you're wrong. It's worse than ever.

Those who prevail in court on legitimate constitutional claims are far too few.

 

[jeremy]

tag

 

[Serial Crusher]

Virtually every "crime drama" revolves around trampling peoples rights. One that springs to mind is "The Closer" where the main actress continuously tramples the constitution so she can have a moment of smug satisfaction, or stamp her heels like a child when she doesn't get her way. The "technicalities" seem to be the province of the "Law and Order" franchise, where the invariably guilty party goes free because a detective or prosecutor drops the ball. I think that these types of television shows corrode freedom by lowering the bar and presenting a preposterous image to the public, somehow making it acceptable or expected.

 

[JetGirl]

If he's truly a bad enough criminal that he must die in jail (he's in his forties) with an extremely long sentence, why was the prosecutor willing to make a deal that would let him out in three? There's something fundamentally wrong, I think.

You make an excellent point.

 

[Son of Liberty]

I think that a symptom or at least a part of the problem is how we define success within the criminal justice system. Is an arrest inherently better than an investigation in which the investigating officer decides not to arrest? Is a trial that ends in a finding of "Not Guilty" neccessarily a loss for the state?

When we keep score and base awards and promotions on putting people in jail as opposed to objectively investigating then a higher percentage of innocent or at least not guilty people are going to end up behind bars.

I would also add that their ( prosecutors) goal is supposed to be to find the truth, not just convict, the government as a whole dosen't seem to care who goes to prison for a crime as long as someone does and they look good to the public.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Politics and personalities are inexorably a part of every prosecution. Detectives genuinely want to get bad guys off the streets (at least the ones I have known do). They are "political" as such, but internal politics can intrude ("We really need to catch this guy"). We've all seen prosecutors/DAs - hell, all sorts of lawyers - who want to win, no matter what it takes. I don't know if they convince themselves that the defendant in a particular case is guilty, or if they just go all-out to prove guilt, because that's their job.

The sociological part of "justice" seems to have been around from the inception of the Republic. I think we all have seen or read stories featuring an innocent party being lynched or convicted of a crime because he was a stranger in town at least as far back as the 1800s. Whether these are fictional or not, they seem to ring true.

The only thing we, as potential jurors, can do, is to be objective and insist upon requiring evidence proving "beyong a reasonable doubt" that the defendant has committed the crime for which he is being tried.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Politics and personalities are inexorably a part of every prosecution. Detectives genuinely want to get bad guys off the streets (at least the ones I have known do). They are "political" as such, but internal politics can intrude ("We really need to catch this guy"). We've all seen prosecutors/DAs - hell, all sorts of lawyers - who want to win, no matter what it takes. I don't know if they convince themselves that the defendant in a particular case is guilty, or if they just go all-out to prove guilt, because that's their job.

The sociological part of "justice" seems to have been around from the inception of the Republic. I think we all have seen or read stories featuring an innocent party being lynched or convicted of a crime because he was a stranger in town at least as far back as the 1800s. Whether these are fictional or not, they seem to ring true.

The only thing we, as potential jurors, can do, is to be objective and insist upon requiring evidence proving "beyong a reasonable doubt" that the defendant has committed the crime for which he is being tried.

 

[Fletch]

The only thing we, as potential jurors, can do, is to be objective and insist upon requiring evidence proving "beyong a reasonable doubt" that the defendant has committed the crime for which he is being tried.

I completely agree with this, but this board is full of threads that amount to Orwell's Two Minutes' Hate against the "criminal o' the day". Evidence, proof, reasonable doubt, or even reason almost never intrude on such discussions. As potential defendants, it seems to me that the last thing a person would want is an INGOer on the jury.

 

[dross]

I completely agree with this, but this board is full of threads that amount to Orwell's Two Minutes' Hate against the "criminal o' the day". Evidence, proof, reasonable doubt, or even reason almost never intrude on such discussions. As potential defendants, it seems to me that the last thing a person would want is an INGOer on the jury.

Which is all the more ironic, since also on this board (and quite rightly, I think) the members are so sensitive to how little the police sometimes know about OC, and whether or not they can ask for ID, or detain you, or any variety of legal fine points when it comes to gun rights, but then suddenly the system is ironclad trustworthy when it comes to these other crimes.

Actually, it reminds me of my friends on the liberal side of the spectrum who understand in detail when the government intrudes on the rights of homosexuals, or free speech when it concerns speech they like, but suddenly can't understand how the same principles of freedom apply to economic and financial matters.

It reminds me of a little analogy I use in discussing a common approach to personal interaction:

A: You hit me! You jerk!
B: But you hit me first.
A: Yes, but it didn't hurt ME when I hit you, so you're a jerk.

People have great difficulty seeing past the ends of their own noses, which is yet another reason why I don't think that libertarianism will ever produce a party in control, but at best will be an influence on one of the major parties.

 

[downzero]

People have great difficulty seeing past the ends of their own noses, which is yet another reason why I don't think that libertarianism will ever produce a party in control, but at best will be an influence on one of the major parties.

Or both of the major parties, if they want to continue to get elected.

Freedom is politically popular.

 

[Fletch]

Freedom is politically popular.

Unfortunately, so is security. There are more than enough folks who want cradle-to-grave care, and want to be told that Big Brother is on the job when it comes to monsters under the bed and in the closet. This then gets turned into a "pro-freedom" plank because we all supposedly have a right to "freedom from fear"...