
I spent 22 years in prison for a crime I didn’t commit - rahuldottech
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/
======
adim86
Something I think about is why is the American Justice system designed the way
it is. Like a commenter said below it is a legal game. Why?

These are peoples lives, why is this system gamified? Why is it not a truth-
seeking system? I am probably naive and don't see the full picture of all of
this but it is confusing to me. The United States is known to be the country
with the highest number of its citizens in prison. With a burdened legal
system and little funding, why does this continue to be so? I find the barrier
of entry to prison in the US very low compared to other countries I have lived
in and visited. What are the advantages of this? I find this all very absurd.

~~~
michaelt
The _theory_ is two sides produce the absolute most convincing argument they
can, and an independent arbiter - the jury - decides between the two
arguments. As both sides can freely choose their representatives, they can
change if their guy isn't doing a good job. And as the jury has heard the
strongest possible arguments, they've heard all the information the two sides
believe they need.

If you're accused of being gay in 1880, a randomly selected truth-seeking
arbiter might be very anti-gay as that was the median opinion in society at
the time - or even subject to political pressure. Only by having free choice
of who represents you can you get someone who isn't biased against you.

Of course, that's only the theory. How well it works in practice, particularly
with under-funded public defenders, is a different matter!

~~~
WilliamEdward
There are so many holes in this theory it is no wonder it doesn't work at all
in practise

~~~
tenpies
Good news then, we use competing systems to determine a solution in several
facets of society (e.g. politics at every level, almost everything related to
countries, governance in the public and private sectors). The minute someone
comes up with a better system with less "holes" it will be quite the human
revolution.

~~~
jellicle
There are different systems in use today. In many other countries,
judges/prosecutors are charged with much more of a "figure out the true facts
of what happened; do justice" role than they are in the US system.

[https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inquisitorial-
system/](https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inquisitorial-system/)

~~~
rootusrootus
Is there evidence to suggest that those systems are more effective at finding
the truth, or delivering justice?

~~~
WilliamEdward
That is a subjective question. I would argue things like paying for lawyers,
paying your court fees even if you win (US system), and bail, cannot be an
effective way to achieve true justice because they are all biased towards the
rich.

------
imjasonmiller
The sad thing to me is that there are hundreds upon hundreds of such cases,
with apparently a racial component to it as well [1].

As the author and jacquesm in this thread touched on [2]:

> I don't think my case was directly race related. I do believe that failed
> public defender systems across the country has a race related component.
> Most people who need a public defender are either black or poor or both.

1\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-
convictions-r...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-convictions-
race-exoneration.html)

2\.
[https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_yea...](https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/f9nttqp/)

~~~
setr
I find it difficult to imagine a sufficiently wealthy black person would
struggle to find a lawyer willing to represent him, and be forced to fall back
onto public defenders.

Most people who need a public defender are poor, and a large portion of the
poor population is black.

------
Knufen
I can't fathom Missouri getting away with imprisoning someone for 22 years and
not paying him any compensation. An entire life down the drain due to
incompetence.

~~~
Ligrev
A while ago I was thinking the same about compensation but then someone
pointed out that if you were eligible for one, they would have incentive to
not let you go.

It would be cheaper for everyone to just keep you unfairly.

~~~
Narkov
> [...] they would have incentive to not let you go

This is where separation of powers is important. A judiciary shouldn't care
that the executive branch is on the hook for compensation.

~~~
ip26
Except, the executive branch appoints judges.

~~~
lzol
This is why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. At least in theory,
they'll carry out their job impartially because they don't have to run for re-
election. They'll hold their position long past when the current
administration so any conflict of interest should be mitigated over time.
Directly electing judges has its own set of problems. I'm not trying to argue
for one way over the other, just pointing out that the executive branch
appointing judges is not inherently wrong.

------
jajag
From the start of the AMA: "the public defender ... didn’t have time or the
resources to prove my innocence". The defence isn't supposed to have to prove
anything, that's the job of the prosecution - but what surprises me even more
is that no-one seems to have picked up on that point. Suggestion for US
readers - it's not a justice system if it imprisons innocence people at an
overly high rate.

~~~
AmericanChopper
This is a naive view, and doesn’t reflect anything unique about the US justice
system at all. Innocent until proven guilty is a nice ideal to aspire too, but
at the end of the day, you’re dealing with the opinions of a dozen random
jurors. The fact that somebody chose to charge the accused with a crime is
enough to prejudice them off the bat. Defence will always carry at least some
burden of proof.

~~~
cr0sh
Not just "a dozen random jurors", but rather "a dozen random jurors who
individually usually don't want to be there and just want to go back home to
eat and live their lives - and by the way, when is lunch?"

I've never been on a jury (and likely never will be - closest I got was "voir
dire", and when I was questioned I inadvertently brought up the concept of a
fully informed jury - and they dismissed all of us virtually then-and-there -
that was over a decade ago and I have yet to be called for jury duty again),
but from what I have read about other people who have, your fellow jurors,
regardless of their intellect or life experience, really don't give a damn
about seeking justice or truth, but rather the most expedient way to leave the
whole thing behind and get back home.

Then - you get someone like me (who gets past voir dire of course) - who does
want to get as close to the truth as possible by examining and questioning and
discussing everything, and if there is any doubt - will not vote unanimously
with everyone else (who just want to go home) - after being sent back to the
juror's room a couple of times...well, most people would likely fold - because
the other jurors gang up on them, scream, threaten to fight, argue, make other
threats, etc - rather than actually do the job they were entrusted with -
especially in a case where a person's life is at stake.

They are all quite selfish, and don't really care about the defendant, and
almost actively hate a fellow juror who does care about the process, about
what is at stake, and about coming to the most just conclusion (especially if
that conclusion is "the law is wrong"). Jurors tend to forget that the jury is
one of their most important Constitutional rights and duty as citizens in the
United States; as the saying goes,

“A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, the jury box, and the
cartridge box.”

Let's hope we never again need to use the last one, which is why the jury box
is so important.

~~~
tssva
Why would you not vote for conviction if there is any doubt when the standard
is beyond a reasonable doubt?

------
janvdberg
He was able to read over 1000 books and notes it as one of the positives. That
is way more than most people will read in their lifetime.

[https://piks.nl/upload/upload/chrome_2019-12-05_09-17-19.png](https://piks.nl/upload/upload/chrome_2019-12-05_09-17-19.png)

This popped out for me because, having time to read, is always the first thing
that comes to my mind about being imprisoned.

~~~
polytely
I think that is changing though:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incarcerated-
pennsyl...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incarcerated-
pennsylvanians-now-have-to-pay-150-to-read-we-should-all-be-
outraged/2018/10/11/51f548b8-cbd9-11e8-a85c-0bbe30c19e8f_story.html)

I cannot fathom working on a product like this, to extract as much as possible
from people who already have almost nothing. It makes my blood boil.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Thats an absolutely terrible and ignorant and draconian policy.

------
youdontknowtho
This is just a personal opinion, but I don't think that anyone should be
sentenced to a term in prison longer than 20 years.

I should also say that I was/am the victim of a crime that, while I wouldn't
feel comfortable talking about it here, would normally get someone the death
penalty.

The primary reason that I don't support the death penalty is that I don't
think that the state can be trusted to kill people humanely. It took me years
to come around to this, but I also believe that it isn't punishment. It's
revenge.

The reason that I don't support terms longer than 20 years is that, no matter
how uncomfortable it is to think about it, its abuse is more horrifying than
the crime. Our prison system is barbaric.

Google "California prison gladiator" and tell me that Abu Ghraib was a bunch
of bad apples. Prisons produce that kind of abuse systematically.

No matter how bad a crime committed by a single individual is, an institution
that that produces the outcomes like those that out prison system creates is
worse.

Where I'm from, the prison system has a legacy that is intrinsically tied up
to the slavery of the pre-civil war era. Some southern states even have
prisons on the grounds of former slave plantations.

In fact one of the things that most american's don't know is that slavery is
not prohibited by the constitution. The amendment that banned slavery left a
clause in place for prison inmates. This is particularly grotesque because
they are still counted for the purposes of determining representation in
congress based on population.

Also, prison guard unions aren't prohibited from lobbying state or federal
government to pass longer sentences. Never mind for-profit prisons, even
prisons run by government aren't free from commercial pressures to keep
prisons full.

I'm intimately aware of how horrible crime can be, but prisons do not stop
crime.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_" Some southern states even have prisons on the grounds of former slave
plantations."_

To increase the horror of this- some southern states have prisons on the
grounds of former slave planations, whose majority black prison population
works the field of said plantations for less than a dollar an hour.

~~~
dragonwriter
That's not exactly just a horrific coincidence; the prison labor system was
adopted as a direct continuation of slavery in the immediate aftermath of the
Civil War, exploiting the explicit exception for penal slavery in the 13th
Amendment.

------
exhilaration
He's got a gofundme if you want a send a few bucks his way:
[https://www.gofundme.com/f/ricky-kidd-reunited-
after-23-year...](https://www.gofundme.com/f/ricky-kidd-reunited-
after-23-years/donate)

Apparently in Missouri, state law says he's owed no money for being imprisoned
_unless_ the wrongful conviction was due to DNA testing.

~~~
jotm
I didn't expect much and I'm still disappointed. What a misery.

------
umbs
From reddit, link to book written by Ricky Kidd:

> [https://smile.amazon.com/Vivid-Expressions-Journey-Inside-
> In...](https://smile.amazon.com/Vivid-Expressions-Journey-Inside-
> Innocent/dp/1548560952)

He now supports himself through his book sales and speaking tours. That's one
way to support him.

If you want to support Midwest Innocence Projecj:
[https://themip.org/donate/](https://themip.org/donate/)

------
DyslexicAtheist
try wrapping your head around the idea of a 43% unemployment rate. That’s the
unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated Black women:
[https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html)

Instead Prisons:
[https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapte...](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter1.shtml)

 _> There ought to be no jails; and if it were not for the fact that the
people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the
people on the inside, there would be no such institutions as jails .... The
only way in the world to abolish crime and criminals is to abolish the big
ones and the little ones together. Make fair conditions of life. Give men a
chance to live .... Nobody would steal if he could get something of his own
some easier way. Nobody will commit burglary when he has a house full. The
only way to cure these conditions is by equality. There should be no jails.
They do not accomplish what they pretend to accomplish. If you would wipe them
out there would be no more criminals than now. They terrorize nobody. They are
a blot upon any civilization, and a jail is an evidence of the lack of charity
of the people on the outside who make the jails and fill them with the victims
of their greed.

—Clarence Darrow, An Address to the Prisoners in the Cook County Jail,
Chicago, Illinois-1902_

~~~
purple_ducks
As feelgood a quote as that may seem, this line:

> Nobody would steal if he could get something of his own some easier way.
> Nobody will commit burglary when he has a house full.

is complete nonsense when contrasted against modern times. All the thieves in
jail are not there because they stole to feed their family or some other noble
deed.

~~~
Emphere
Yep. Agree with his conclusions but also think that his reasoning is nonsense

------
psaux
This is one of the best threads and feedback I have read on HN. The biggest
fear among males is prison. Not having proper protection and legal advise
changes lives, and it federates deep.

------
schneby
Ricky came and spoke at my firm a month ago after being out for only 72 days.
He has an amazing story. He is a phenomenal speaker. I was in charge of
logistics for the event and we had a book signing after he spoke. As he signed
each book he put a unique and different inscription in EVERY SINGLE BOOK HE
SIGNED. Literally no two were the same and he signed a ton of books. I would
recommend you bring Ricky to speak wherever you may work so more people can
hear his story. Support Ricky directly by buying his book or supporting his
GoFundMe.

------
jessaustin
_We are over-taxing the justice system; we need to decriminalize a lot [of]
behavior that would be better managed by the health care system. A majority of
people in prison are mentally ill. Many are there for drug convictions or
behavior in service of an addiction. So reducing the number of people brought
into the system would be a strong start. Stop voting for tough-on-crime
politicians, and start getting smart on crime._ \-- Sean O’Brien

~~~
zeveb
I agree with his point, but I think that it's also important to note that
there was a reason why 'tough on crime' was electoral gold for so long: the
U.S. really _did_ have a problem with violent crime (still does, in comparison
to other countries, but it's a _lot_ better now than it was).

There are a whole lot of reasons for that. Our history of racial injustice
absolutely destroyed so many black communities, to a degree I hadn't
appreciated before I considered it. Closing the asylums (which really were
awful, but _also_ really were needed) was another problem. The widespread
attitude that the justice system is to punish the guilty rather than reform
people who have done bad things is another. I suspect that the fact that
Americans descend from folks who were so unusual that they fled across
continents and oceans to get away from their communities can't possibly help.

But for all that, prior to the tough-on-crime movement we really did have a
problem with real crime — by 'real' I mean crime with actual victims. Things
are much better now, and we are much richer now, and so now we have the luxury
of being smarter.

~~~
jessaustin
No, USA never had such a "problem with violent crime" to justify anything like
the evil we've done to the incarcerated in this country. Maybe the media or
politicians told you that, but they were scamming your prejudices for
attention and votes. Violent crime _is_ much lower now than it was in decades
past, but that's true of pretty much anywhere else on earth. The violence we
have is mostly a result of drug prohibition (which could go away anytime we
decide we'd like less violence) and our colonial legacy. Comparing USA to
Belgium is for suckers. The nation to which we are most similar is Brazil.
They also have more violence than homogeneous non-colonized nations.

------
billfruit
Won't civil law measures against wrongful imprisonment come into play here?
The state should be paying heftily for putting people into imprisonment
wrongfully.

~~~
yaur
How would you structure a compensation scheme that fairly compensates someone
who was wrongly imprisoned before "iPhone" was a thing until now? Assume that
his imprisonment has deprived him of the ability to learn critical financial
management skills and that society hates unearned entitlements.

~~~
nkrisc
> society hates unearned entitlements.

I'd say he spent 22 years earning it.

------
air7
How much of this nightmare happens in other 1st world countries? Does the
adage "Never talk to the police" hold elsewhere/everywhere?

~~~
blattimwind
It absolutely can happen but I suspect the frequency is much lower compared to
the US (just like being imprisoned in general is much less likely in most
other countries). I would certainly hope so.

Most high profile cases of wrongful conviction or almost-wrongful-convictions
in Germany are sex crimes or connected to sex crimes with very little reliable
evidence.

> The cops don't want to sort anything out, they aren't on your side. They
> want to nail you. That's all they care about. They have a job to do. That
> job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So they're gonna do that.

Police in a certain sense always wants to nail people after a crime has been
committed. The difference is perhaps that US cops are more happy nailing any
convenient person, while police elsewhere rather want to nail who actually did
it, which of course does not mean they actually do.

Apart from being directly connected to a serious investigation in which case
it is probably most wise to consult a lawyer in any case, I don't have issues
talking to the police, be it reporting something or asking for help. If people
regard police as an oppressive force that better not be involved in things,
that clearly suggests a big problem with the police.

~~~
umvi
> The difference is perhaps that US cops are more happy nailing any convenient
> person, while police elsewhere rather want to nail who actually did it,
> which of course does not mean they actually do.

This seems like gross assumption. I have no doubt there are plenty of
genuinely good American cops who want to do what is right. But the bad cases
of the entire nation float to the top of the newspapers/internet and give the
impression that the whole country is this way.

I've yet to see actual statistics of wrong imprisonment rates in the US vs.
EU. And I'm sure if you broke if down by state you'd find some states have
even better cops than EU.

~~~
blattimwind
It is always easy to think these things come down to individual's behaviour
when systematic pressures and biases can play as big a role if not larger,
e.g. pushing for arrest rates.

------
henvic
If you are interested in this matter, watch The confession Tapes in Netflix,
and learn why you should never talk to cops (nor brag about crimes [you
haven't committed - and even if you have, you don't want to start talking
without a good lawyer helping you out first because a deal might be on the
table, etc.).

[https://www.netflix.com/title/80161702](https://www.netflix.com/title/80161702)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confession_Tapes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confession_Tapes)

------
francescopnpn
Another nightmare that could even come close, I can not imagine.

------
nickthemagicman
These letters from his public defender seem horrible.

[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-ricky-kidds-
despera...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-ricky-kidds-desperate-
letters-begging-his-public-defender-to-do-more)

~~~
jaclaz
Thank you for the link.

What I find really appalling, besides the letters by the lawyer is that the
attempt to have her changed was submittd to court on a pre-printed form, which
means logically that it is very commmon to have "free" defenders doing
nothing.

The way the form is laid down, the five pre-printed "statements of facts" are
an exact list of infringements to all the duties that a public defender should
have and represent IMHO serious accusations that in other countries would
likely trigger at the very least an "ethics" investigation on the lawyer.

Besides any reason, true or false, given for requesting the change of one's
defense, having it granted should be a basic right.

------
tzfld
The fact that the legal system can work correctly only if you throw enough
money into it, that's scary. Is it a good thing that only wealthy persons can
afford a correct legal treatment? Not seems to be in a free and open society
the US claims to have.

~~~
sysbin
The US never claimed to be a free & open society. It’s just interpreted that
way by people that don’t have any significant wealth. Everyone is created
equal when it comes to the significance of the almighty capital.

------
ainiriand
Another sad situation that discourages death penalty. I can't even imagine the
amount of people killed when they did nothing wrong.

~~~
apta
People bring up this argument all the time as if there are no other
alternatives (black or white fallacy). How about a simple rule to abide by: if
there is any ounce of doubt as to whether the person committed the crime that
puts the death penalty on the table, then it doesn't get upheld. They can get
punished in other ways if evidence is strong enough though.

The death penalty would only apply to clear-cut cases. And there have already
been a bunch of those (mass shooters, etc.).

~~~
benchaney
We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that
they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. That doesn’t seem to be
working at all.

There are two reasons we can’t just have a higher standard for the death
penalty. The first is that there isn’t a sensible standard stronger than proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The second is that even if we impose a higher
standard, that standard won’t be enforced correctly. Similar to how proof
beyond reasonable doubt isn’t enforced correctly now.

~~~
apta
> We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that
> they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished.

This is different from what I wrote. When there's a serious punishment like
the death penalty, then any ounce of doubt should waive it. Other lesser
punishments can still hold if evidence is strong enough.

~~~
benchaney
I addressed this in the second half of my comment. There isn’t a sensible
standard stricter than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the current standard
isn’t enforced properly so I don’t see why adding another one will magically
fix the issue.

~~~
apta
Because it already works like this in other regions/cultures, and it seems to
be doing quite well.

------
walterkrankheit
I have been living in Germany for many years and the prison (and justice)
system is obviously different hear. Quite a few Americans think it's ludicrous
here. But reading this, I beg to differ. This is also just heartbreaking.

It's also crazy to think he gets no state compensation for this sort of thing.

~~~
gmueckl
The German legal system works _very_ differently. I can see how US citizens
would be comfused about that. In Germany, the Judge asks questions and arrives
at a verdict. The prosecution and the defense state their cases and bring
evidence, also question the witnesses etc... but the Judge has a lot of
control over the process of examination. So the nature of the court
proceedings is not fundamentally adversarial as both parties have to convince
a person who tends to ask hard questions about the arguments that are brought
before the court. I have witnessed judges tear through bullshit arguments with
ease.

Judges may be guided by personal biases. That does happen. To balance that,
ordinary citizens are drafted as layman judges (Schöffen) to assist in more
important cases for fixed terms (not individual cases). They are present to
balance out professional judges and any biases they may develop as part of the
system. They are passive observers in the court room, but have an equal say in
deciding the final judgement. So this may lead to panels of up to five judges
presiding over a case.

The resulting system is not perfect. But I got the impression from my personal
experience that it is quite fair and balanced over all. It isn't a perfect
system, and some egregious errors are made. Some have ruined lives
unnecessarily. But on average, it still looks fairer to me than what I hear
about the US system.

------
timwaagh
'anything you say can and _will_ be used against you in a court of law'. This
sentence police say condemns the us system to a game where the objective is to
beat the opponent. It's ingrained in the system every step of the way, even
with a person's supposed 'rights'.

------
TurkishPoptart
This may be a dumb question, but if I'm in the situation where I'm being
questioned by the police and need a lawyer, how do I get one (a decent one,
not a public defender)? Is there a hotline or something? I've never interacted
with a lawyer before.

------
TurkishPoptart
Thank God for PBS NewsHour. Some the best, most professional (exhibiting
neutrality, just the facts) journalists we have.

------
jacquesm
Cutting and pasting this comment from the thread:

As someone once falsely accused of a crime and facing 12 years in prison. I
went to trial and I have some advice for people.

1\. You gotta start acting and thinking like you're guilty. Ask yourself "if I
was guilty and trying to get away with this, what would I do?"

When you're innocent you think that your innocence means something. It
doesn't. Discount it and move on.

2\. Get the best lawyer you can not afford. Borrow from anyone and everyone. I
borrowed 120k for my trial. Had to work my ass off to pay people back but it
was worth every cent.

EDIT: Another mindset to use is to remember it's NOT a justice system. It's a
legal system, so get the best damn team you can. Because you're in a legal
game not a justice game. Know what game you're playing before you step on the
floor.

3\. Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's
the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they
aren't on your side. They want to nail you. That's all they care about. They
have a job to do. That job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So
they're gonna do that. Don't help them do that. Save your ammunition for
trial. My jury ended up laughing at the prosecutor and the investigating
officer in the trial.

I was acquitted of 13 charges in under 70 minutes by my jury. If I had of used
a public defender I would be in prison still. With another 6 years to go.

Hopefully this advice helps someone else. Hit me up if you're in trouble with
the law and just want an ear to listen.

PS. If you're guilty, I got nothing for you, no idea how to help you.

EDIT: Another mindset to use is to remember it's NOT a justice system. It's a
legal system, so get the best damn team you can. Because you're in a legal
game not a justice game. Know what game you're playing before you step on the
floor.

from:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_yea...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/f9oranm/)

~~~
gchadwick
> Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's
> the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they
> aren't on your side. They want to nail you. That's all they care about. They
> have a job to do. That job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So
> they're gonna do that. Don't help them do that. Save your ammunition for
> trial. My jury ended up laughing at the prosecutor and the investigating
> officer in the trial.

Beware this advice can vary from country to country. In England and Wales for
example if you don't say something to the police that you later rely on for
your defense that can be used against you e.g. they ask 'why was your boot
full of weapons and where were you heading?' you stay silent then later state
in court 'it was my brother's car, he asked me to drive it to a friend's house
and pick him up, I didn't think to check in the boot' they could perhaps infer
you'd taken some time to concoct a false story which is why you didn't answer
the question initially however the rules are complex:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence).
You do have the right for a duty solicitor to attend an interview who can
advise you on prudent things to say and where you should stay silent.

EDIT: Initially said this applied to the whole UK, actually only England and
Wales (from the linked Wikipedia page) uncertain about Scotland & Northern
Ireland.

~~~
mcv
The extremely adversarial approach to "justice" is an issue specific to the US
(and probably some other countries), and is not universal.

Do definitely have a lawyer present, but whether or not to talk to the police
varies a lot per country. Personally, I think that not talking to the police
being such vital advice in the US, is a strong condemnation of how the
American system works. People should be able to trust the police, and the
police and prosecutors should be working to do justice, not merely to lock up
as many people as possible. Every innocent person behind bars is a failure of
the system.

~~~
matwood
It has to do with incentives. When incentivized for the number of arrests and
convictions, no one cares if it's the right people. Add in that there is
almost zero penalty for prosecutorial misconduct unless it is extreme, and
it's no wonder so many innocent people end up in jail.

Prosecutors play fast and loose to win the game, justice be damned.

~~~
mcv
Yeah, the system needs to be fixed. Instead of rewarding people for number of
convictions, right or wrong, they should be rewarded for reducing crime by
independent measurement. Or simply be rewarded for doing their job as honestly
as possible, with proper accountability and all that.

But rewarding police and prosecutors for the number of convictions is like
rewarding programmers for the number of lines of code. It rewards bad code and
unjust convictions.

Maybe there should be a justice-equivalent of code review for police and
prosecutors.

~~~
ryacko
It was called the grand jury, they made reports on issues of public concern,
and authorized private prosecutors to pursue cases against suspects.

It isn't clear what sort of reforms are needed, but grand juries are the only
democratic institution in our republic.

------
bayesian_horse
Depressing.

------
baybal2
Americans, take a look at that. I think you have a lot to learn where Soviet,
and then Russian criminal justice system went.

US police and that of Soviet Union have surprisingly many things in common.

The biggest similarity I think is police's and DAs' willingness to throw a
charge at just anybody, some times even at a first passerby they see, and then
"seeing if it sticks." And they, sometimes, show an even greater zeal at going
after known "easy targets" than genuine cases.

~~~
WalterBright
You always have to look at what the incentives are.

For example, forensic labs are paid by the prosecution. They really need to be
funded by a separate organization.

------
seibelj
HN commenters are usually infatuated with using the government to solve all of
their problems, then situations like this come up and it’s “Doh! Why this
happen?!?” How about we stop giving the government infinite power, both in the
legal system and in the political system?

~~~
wycy
Who do you suggest solve _legal_ problems if not the government?

~~~
Clubber
He didn't say anything about abolishing government prosecutions, he said stop
giving them unlimited power.

A good example I can think of is over charging a defendant. Aaron Swartz is a
good tech example.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz)

The only ray of light is Kamala Harris got killed in the presidential primary.
She basically ran on throwing people in jail and the old, "tough on crime"
trope. She probably would have been much more successful if Tulsi Gabbard
hadn't mentioned her prosecutorial record. Many prosecutors have political
ambitions and prosecute accordingly.

