
Home Free - luckysahaf
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/derrick-hamilton-jailhouse-lawyer
======
pilom
What can you do? 1\. If you are on a jury, remember that it is FAR FAR FAR
worse to imprison an innocent person than to let a guilty person free,
regardless of the crime. Listen to evidence and make a personal decision about
the defendant's guilt with that in mind and don't let any other jurors push
you around. 2\. Donate to your local chapter of the Innocence Project. 3\.
Encourage your local DA office to form or expand a version of the Conviction
Review Unit mentioned in the article.

~~~
kiliantics
If I were on a jury in the US, I'd vote the defendant not guilty no matter
what the evidence. Prison here (and almost everywhere) is a human rights
catastrophe and no person deserves it.

~~~
gwkoehler
So basically, you believe dangerous people should remain in society? Habitual
criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself and your
family, and you wouldn't even call the police?

~~~
justratsinacoat
>So basically, you believe dangerous people should remain in society?

>Habitual criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself
and your family, and you wouldn't even call the police?

One of these sentences is a reasonable, if a bit reductive, summary of the
GP's point. The other is wild hyperbole.

Fully half of the comment I'm replying to is total nonsense, putting words in
another's mouth, disingenuously representing another's opinion in the hope of
making that person seem monstrous.

To what end, gwkoehler? Is your position so tenuous that you feel you must
misrepresent your opponent's? If your comments weren't an attempt at a
counterargument, is it really so important to tell kiliantics that you
disagree with his opinion and wish to paint it as unwise?

~~~
gwkoehler
I was trying to spark discussion, because I honestly do not understand this
point of view. If you believe criminals shouldn't go to jail, it stands to
reason that you're ok with coexisting with some very violent people next door.
Someone has to.

~~~
justratsinacoat
A great way to understand another's point of view is to strawman it!! If
you're actually interested in GGGP's position, look at his second sentence --
it's not that he's some insane opponent of Law and Order, it's that he seems
to believe that the US penal system is so monstrous a punishment that he'd
rather not visit it on anyone. Regardless, asking open-ended questions, rather
than hoisting Cunningham's Law and charging, is probably a better way to
'spark discussion'.

~~~
gwkoehler
Do you believe that any one person deserves jail in the united states?

~~~
justratsinacoat
The point of view you're riled up about isn't mine. Go try to start fights
elsewhere.

~~~
gwkoehler
I'm not riled up, just curious.

------
spdustin
I wish jurors would understand their role is to protect the innocent from
prosecutorial overreach, not rubber-stamp the prosecution's assertion that a
law has been broken. They have more power than the judge (who is really just
supposed to enforce procedural rules and maintain order) because they can vote
_against the law_! Imagine, a jury filled with jurors who know that:

A) They can't be punished for their verdict B) They can, and should, consider
the rule of law, and not just the veracity of the evidence as is often
directed by the judge C) _They have the authority to say "okay, the evidence
shows the defendant is guilty, but we don't think the law is a just one, so
we're going to acquit."_

Sometimes, that power is used for good (not convicting those who helped
runaway slaves, for example, or not convicting minor drug offenses, keeping
our disgustingly overcrowded county jails from adding to their rolls) and
sometimes not (the officers acquitted despite video evidence of their beating
Rodney King).

It is, however, an exemplar of the checks-and-balances meant to constrain a
government that may otherwise overstep its boundaries to violate a citizen's
rights. While the rights afforded to a jury are in danger of changing, they
haven't changed yet, and potential jurors everywhere in the US should read up
more on their rights and responsibilities as a juror.

~~~
CompelTechnic
I think I remember reading somewhere that if you demonstrate knowledge about
jury nullification during the screening process when you are called for jury
duty, you will be screened out as a juror. Which is frickin' ridiculous!

~~~
crispyambulance
You can be screened out for literally ANYTHING during voire dire. It really is
up to the lawyers and their prejudices and based entirely on your superficial
appearance.

But if you just don't want to serve, don't waste everyone's time-- just say
you can't be objective, or better, give a hardship excuse before the court
date.

------
zeveb
> Scarcella has never been prosecuted for his alleged malfeasance; the statute
> of limitations for perjury is five years.

There's the problem. There shouldn't be a statute of limitations on police
malfeasance any more than there is one on murder. Police officers who perjure
themselves to obtain convictions should be executed.

------
diego_moita
To me this all speaks "zeitgeist", the mindset of an era.

This was New York in the 80s and 90s, the Rudy Giuliani era, "no broken
windows", tough on crime mentality. The town was traumatized by more than a
thousand murders every year. Everyone was desperate for convicts, from the
voters to the attorneys, the politicians and jurors. No one had patience to
"due process". It was a war.

That era has been praised as a victory for law enforcement. Black Lives Matter
and others are now showing the real cost of it. No wonder Giuliani freaks out
about BLM.

~~~
PantaloonFlames
"tough on crime" is not the same as "abandon due process".

I challenge your view that jurors and voters would approve of abandoning due
process. Sure they wanted convictions of criminals. But not at the cost of
faked confessions, lying under oauth, false testimony by law enforcement. It's
easy to see that leads to chaos. No one signed up for that, except the
watchmen.

------
metalliqaz
Louis Scarcella will not face prosecution. God, that makes me sick.

~~~
mathattack
For better or worse, sometimes to change the system you need to avoid
vengeance. This is why many terrible dictators are allowed to live in peace in
exile.

~~~
efaref
I'm surprised he doesn't live in fear of one of his ex-convicts getting out
and going full Dexter on him. Perhaps he really believes his made-up lies.

~~~
gingerrr
You're probably right that he believes his own lies. The type of people to
exclaim "I've never done anything wrong in my entire life" (as Scarcella does
in the article) are usually the biggest buyers of their own bullshit.

It takes serious cognitive dissonance to be able to say something like that
with a straight face.

~~~
eric_h
> The type of people to exclaim "I've never done anything wrong in my entire
> life"

If anyone ever said those words to me, I would do my best to never, ever,
interact with them. It's prime facia a false statement, and anyone who can say
it with conviction (assuming they are an adult) must necessarily be a liar.

I've done plenty of things wrong, I've broken the law countless times (which,
really is nothing special, literally everyone has, but I've done it knowingly
and willfully), I've inadvertently burned bridges (figuratively, of course)
and offended people deeply that I never meant to.

No one is perfect, anyone who says (and appears to believe) that they are is a
menace to society.

------
Mz
Happily, I found this article more positive than the comments here make it
sound. The system is changing. People are being exonerated. These injustices
are getting press.

Obviously, it would be nice if injustice never occurred. But injustices do
occur and it is far worse when we would rather pretend it doesn't happen than
to own up and do what we can to redress them.

