Underlying causes include: in many US states, the District Attorney (chief prosecutor) is an elected position. In many US states, local judges are elected.<p>A major winning strategy of the last hundred years or so is the "law and order" platform, in which the politicians exploit racism, classism and even ageism to provoke fear of violent crime. The politician promises that they will increase arrest rates, win trials, and impose higher sentences in order to protect the [white, middle-class, elderly] citizens from the [black or hispanic, lower-class, teenaged] hoodlums.<p>And they win, and they put these policies into effect.<p>Do they work? Well, they work at getting the politicians re-elected, and that's the only real success criterion.<p>It turns out that if you ask Americans what to do about most issues, and you phrase the questions in non-aggressive ways, and you invoke empathy -- they mostly agree that treating people kindly is important. That innocence should be an absolute defense. That everyone should get necessary health care, and nobody should starve or be cripplingly poor. That people should work if they can, but not be abandoned if they can't.<p>But those positions are not very effective for the media and politicians, so they go with what works for their goals instead.
Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?
... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.
It appears from the article that if you're wrongfully jailed in the US, you're not automatically entitled to compensation for lost income and other expenses caused by the jail time. Surely this must be incorrect?
What a ludicrous idea. Cops break into your house, arrest you for a crime you didn't commit, take months to figure out they blew it -- then what? You get a greeting card in the mail announcing that you're actually innocent? Maybe some flowers?<p>Sorry, no.<p>I support the use of force, including lethal force, on violent criminals when the public is in danger. I support the appropriate use of force otherwise. But in return for that support, there has to be some kind of feedback mechanism in place. I understand that workplace accidents happen, and nobody's perfect. But ruining somebody's life isn't the same as an IT worker forgetting his security badge one day. "Actual innocence" looks like a gimmick to make the poor rube you screwed over feel better, not evolve the system to a better state.<p>As bad as these stories are, my concern is for the next victim -- and the next thousand after that.
"Crazy idea: let's not try to put innocent people in jail"<p>Man whoever thought of that is a fucking radical and needs to be stopped /s
> "That's distinct from 'I didn't get treated fairly' [.. ] It's not, 'Some of the evidence was obtained unlawfully, there was an incorrect ruling by the court, [...] - no, you actually have the wrong person here...they're actually innocent."<p>So there is a difference between real innocence and "we-are-not-able-to-convict-him-but-we-think-he-is-guilty" innocence? And the prosecutor gets to decide?<p>Then why even bother with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s
Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects;<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/" rel="nofollow">http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...</a>