Comments on: Monday Evening Margarita http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/05/monday-evening-margarita/ Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:21:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Windypundit http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/05/monday-evening-margarita/#comment-29809 Windypundit Tue, 06 May 2008 04:37:35 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1189#comment-29809 In the context of the criminal justice system, "exonerated" may well be correct, but when we evaluate criminal justice policies, we have to judge them in a larger context. That we follow the procedures and standards of our system of justice because we believe they produce a good overall result---justice, one hopes---doesn't mean that letting guilty people go free isn't still a bad thing. That factual guilt or innocence is often unknowable doesn't make it less important---just less certain. So, as a datapoint for analysis of policy, proof of factual innocence is stronger evidence than is destruction of supposed proof of factual guilt. In the context of the criminal justice system, “exonerated” may well be correct, but when we evaluate criminal justice policies, we have to judge them in a larger context.

That we follow the procedures and standards of our system of justice because we believe they produce a good overall result—justice, one hopes—doesn’t mean that letting guilty people go free isn’t still a bad thing.

That factual guilt or innocence is often unknowable doesn’t make it less important—just less certain. So, as a datapoint for analysis of policy, proof of factual innocence is stronger evidence than is destruction of supposed proof of factual guilt.

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/05/monday-evening-margarita/#comment-29791 SPO Tue, 06 May 2008 03:23:41 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1189#comment-29791 The problem, Gideon, I think is shown if you do a little thought experiment. Let's say that Jeremy Sheets was never let off death row and was executed for the crime for which he was convicted. The system, at least under the DPIC's manner of evaluating it, would be better, as there would be one less "exoneration". So, in essence, the system's procedural liberality is used against it. Relatedly, the "exoneration" list really is mixing apples and oranges. There is a fact of life--sometimes people get away with murder. This would be a "false negative". And there are certainly "false negatives" in the 128 "exonerees". How fair is it to indict a system with numbers that include those false negatives? The answer is that it is not. The problem, Gideon, I think is shown if you do a little thought experiment. Let’s say that Jeremy Sheets was never let off death row and was executed for the crime for which he was convicted. The system, at least under the DPIC’s manner of evaluating it, would be better, as there would be one less “exoneration”. So, in essence, the system’s procedural liberality is used against it.

Relatedly, the “exoneration” list really is mixing apples and oranges. There is a fact of life–sometimes people get away with murder. This would be a “false negative”. And there are certainly “false negatives” in the 128 “exonerees”. How fair is it to indict a system with numbers that include those false negatives? The answer is that it is not.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/05/monday-evening-margarita/#comment-29780 Gideon Tue, 06 May 2008 02:40:43 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1189#comment-29780 But in the context of the burden of proof and the criminal justice system, isn't "exonerated" correct? There wasn't enough evidence to convict. The criminal justice system isn't concerned with innocence - it is concerned with guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in the context of the burden of proof and the criminal justice system, isn’t “exonerated” correct? There wasn’t enough evidence to convict. The criminal justice system isn’t concerned with innocence - it is concerned with guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/05/monday-evening-margarita/#comment-29778 SPO Tue, 06 May 2008 02:38:51 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1189#comment-29778 I think the folks at Crime & Consequences would like to see some honesty in this "exoneration" stuff. There is a difference between a Kirk Bloodworth and a Jeremy Sheets. That abolitionists refuse to acknowledge the point shows a good deal of intellectual dishonesty. I think the folks at Crime & Consequences would like to see some honesty in this “exoneration” stuff. There is a difference between a Kirk Bloodworth and a Jeremy Sheets. That abolitionists refuse to acknowledge the point shows a good deal of intellectual dishonesty.

]]>