Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BaltimoreBadger23 t1_j1wr0lt wrote

The adversarial process of criminal prosecution in this country puts way too many innocent people behind bars because prosecutors have to focus on convictions rather than justice.

241

DragonGarlicBreath t1_j1x18og wrote

I mean, a big part of the problem is that since prosectors are elected, voter lack of concern for the difference between "we got the person who actually did it" and "we got someone the public feels good about locking up" is just as much the problem.

94

hydrOHxide t1_j1x52ta wrote

But that's all part of the Great American Show Trial. Much like the trial itself is a show to convince the jury of your narrative and give a f*** about what the evidence actually supports. Experts in the adversarial system are likewise engaged in a d*ck swinging contest, with frequent attempts of lawyers and prosecutors trying to out-expert the expert in cross. That's not how science properly works and it makes many a worthy expert reluctant to do that job.

What matters is that the public is entertained and gets its good vibes that someone is made to pay.

22

DragonGarlicBreath t1_j1xhz9l wrote

I'm not saying prosecutors don't exploit the hell out of things at the expense of actual justice, I'm just saying the other side of the coin is that voters are letting them do it. Just like every politician who uses manufactered divisive issues: they're dog doo on democracies shoe, but we long as voters reward them for it, they'll keep doing it. No one is doing their jobs here.

5

4gotOldU-name t1_j1yhy8j wrote

My experience differs greatly from what you describe.

Was a juror in a high profile murder trial that eventually was a 20/20 episode (complete with horrific pictures of "shotgun vs. head"). It had none of the negative things you described.

Perhaps it is very different, depending on the state one is in?

4

hydrOHxide t1_j1ynj12 wrote

5

4gotOldU-name t1_j1yo7t8 wrote

>Experts in the adversarial system are likewise engaged in a d*ck swinging contest, with frequent attempts of lawyers and prosecutors trying to out-expert the expert in cross.

So, how scientific is a "dick swinging contest"?

Or an Op Ed from the Washington Post?

Both are behind pay walls, so wasn't able to read either.

1

Fake_William_Shatner t1_j1x3361 wrote

> focus on convictions

Yeah, it's like they don't even care about your well being.

Kind of defeats all the bullshit supporting the War on drugs as well. If we actually cared about the damage of drugs, we'd be researching them and teaching the REAL effects in school -- but, that would also mean admitting they don't automatically kill you, make you insane, or addicted. A shitty life that leaves an empty hole is the reason for most addiction-- let's be honest about that.

If we wanted less crime, we'd spend more on after school programs and counseling and maybe a fucking living wage so the single parent doesn't have a kid who joins a gang because their never home or always tired.

Most crimes that are measured are what poor people do, and the things rich people do that are damaging are less investigated or actually legal. Like, donating to a candidate is LEGAL??? That's a bribe -- why are we fooling ourselves?

Most people will never have anyone do as much damage to them as ten days in jail does to a person. And about 80% of the people in jails in some cities are there because they couldn't pay the fines. Oh, we don't have debtors prisons anymore, but, most of the people in prison are poor or have learning disabilities that made their formative years hell without proper support -- and so, most of them are poor as well.

26

GetlostMaps t1_j1xy6vo wrote

Because they are ELECTED. This is why the Modern Developed World does not elect prosecutors, police chiefs, judges etc - only shithole countries do that.

15

Helstar_RS t1_j232t1j wrote

But it's all about stats not just for them but the department too.

2