Skip to main content

Innocent till jurors start to really dislike you?

Here's yet another case, tragic in countless senses, where overzealous prosecutors jumped the gun and focused on the wrong suspectthe father, who spent eight months in jailbefore learning six years later that someone else, in this instance a convicted sex offender, had done the grisly deed. The remarkable work of The Innocence Project teaches us that these episodes are hardly a rarity. All told, as of this writing, Scheck, Neufeld et al have freed 254 convicts who were wrongly (and, too often, wrongfully) convicted.
This is why I've said many times that the standards of evidence, or what we call evidence, are way too lenient. (See particularly here and here. If you're a glutton for punishment [no pun intended], you might also want to read my long September '09 piece for Skeptic, "Criminal Injustice.") I am gravitating more and more to the position that if there isn't verifiable physical evidence linking someone to a crime scene, no charges should be filed. Among other things, this would ameliorate the justice system's racial inequities. It would eliminate convictions based on circumstantial evidence. And it certainly would rule out verdicts that flow from jurors' impressions of a defendant's demeanor at trial: As I've also said on several occasions, that sort of vague, inferential "fact"-finding, rooted in nothing more than a defendant's Q-score and/or wildly fallacious assumptions about "how people ought to behave" in such circumstances*, is so arbitrary, subjective and prejudicial that it has no place anywhere near a court of law. Its specific exclusion should be part of a judge's instructions to the jury.

Would this result in at least some guilty parties going free? Yes. But I go by that old saw about how "it's better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted." After all, you can't exonerate someone who has already been executed.

* which of course is itself largely rooted in jurors' perceptions of how they would behave, which has zero bearing on the matter at hand.

Popular posts from this blog

Placebo: how a sugar pill became a poison pill. Part 9 of a contintuing saga...

Read Part 8 . In 1921, amid the early tumult of prohibition, a remarkable study took shape in Palo Alto, California. Stanford psychologist Lewis Madison Terman—as serious-looking a man as one is apt to find, with hi s specs, upright bearing and unsmiling mien—would one day be remembered most ly for designing and publishing the final accepted version of the Stanford-Binet IQ test. In '21, however, Terman began work on another project that may have more lasting import for humankind, despite being known today to just a small circle of “longevity wonks.” Terman proposed to track th e lives of 1528 American children from that point on. His subjects, encountered in the course of his study of intelligence, were all 10 years old. Terman himself was 44; he would follow them and their families for the rest of his life, and he obtained from his younger associates a pledge to do the same after he was gone. The goal was to note what kind of longevity the 10-year-olds achieved, and try to deduc

Adrift in the parkways of our minds?

Not far from where I write this is a very nice park, a true urban oasis: one of those elongated greenbelts that, together with the sweeping peripheral roads on either side, particularly lends itself to the description "parkway." For the past quarter-century, the park has been inhabited by a gentleman named Earl. It follows th at this gentleman, now nearing 70, bears the whimsical/romantic labe l "Ea r l of the P a rkway." Earl's exploits have been much-chronicled , such that he is today something of a f olk hero, albeit a melancholic one, among those who live in areas adjacent to the park. Strictly speaking, Earl doesn't have to live in the park. He has options. Many would thus say he chooses to live there. (Or, if we prefer not to use terminology that evokes issues of free will vs. determinism, we could posit simply and neutrally that Earl continues to live there, regardl ess of whether alternatives objectively exist.) You might say that based on that de

Maybe they figured they'd keep the profits a 'Secret' too?

So now comes word that Drew Heriot, the director behind The Secret DVD, has filed suit against Rhonda Byrne et al, alleging that he was denied his fair share of profits from the project's otherwordly success. It's too soon to know what's really going on here—and it might be a mistake to assume automatically that Heriot's legal claims represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This wouldn't be the first time someone signed on to a project for a negotiated fee, saw the project take off beyond his wildest dreams, then decided he'd sold his soul too cheaply. I knew a struggling writer some years back who agreed to accept a $25,000 flat fee to ghost a book for a Certain Middling Celebrity. After the book became a New York Times bestseller, the ghostwriter filed suit claiming that he'd had a "gentleman's agreement" with the Certain Middling Celebrity that there'd be more money coming—a whole lot more—if the book took off.