A Study from Northwestern Points to Error rates in non-capital prosecutions

[Dunderman]

@Bricker

If I had ever found something that convinced me I had a truly innocent guy, I believe I could have shared it - whatever it was that convinced me - with almost every prosecutor I ever worked against and gotten a nolle pross. It wouldn’t be me saying, “Hey, trust me,” but rather me saying, “Look at this,” or “Listen to this.”

OK, that makes a lot more sense.

[Shodan]

@askeptic

Oh come on, you’re not even trying anymore…

Trying what?

Here’s a suggestion - read these two sentences.
[ul][li]There were procedural errors in the trials mentioned.[*]Were there procedural errors in the trials mentioned?[/ul]Do you see any difference between them? If so, which do you believe more nearly matches my post? (Hint: note the puncuation and word order, which often convey meaning in standard English. Show your work for full credit.)[/li]

@David Simmons

The method was to interview judges and find out in what percentage of the cases the judge disagreed with the jury’s decision.

On the assumption that both can’t be right they asssumed that there must have been a mistake made.

Well, that’s a bit sweeping. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
Shodan

[David_Simmons]

@Shodan

Well, that’s a bit sweeping. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
Shodan

I agree that there is some question about the validity of the assumption. However in cases where DNA evidence is available an alarming number are found to have been decided wrongly. The former Republicazn governor of Illinois suspended all death penalties while the matter could be investigated because of several such mistakes that were uncovered. This site from Canada is just one of many that deal with the problem.

[Shodan]

@David Simmons

I agree that there is some question about the validity of the assumption. However in cases where DNA evidence is available an alarming number are found to have been decided wrongly. The former Republicazn governor of Illinois suspended all death penalties while the matter could be investigated because of several such mistakes that were uncovered. This site from Canada is just one of many that deal with the problem.

Certainly, but that is a different level of proof than “the judge’s opinion”. If the Northwestern study could show that one-third of convictions were erroneous with the same level of rigor as DNA, then I would agree we have a problem. But “37% of the time the judge would have acquitted when the jury convicted” is not the same playing field, IYSWIM.

Regards,
Shodan