• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Man freed from jail after 26 years

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Seems to me some people are understandably angry at the problem of an innocent man being locked up for that time, and are looking for someone to blame without much rationality. That's how bad policies happen, well one way they happen.

The thing is they're looking at the wrong area, 'how could lawyers keep that infor secret and allow injustice', rather than looking at the more relevant question, 'how can we improve our justice system so that the innocent man wouldn't have been convicted, when some evil killer commits a crime and the wrong person is charged?'

I'd go so far as to say I suspect a lot of the same people who are angry at the situation of the innocent man in prison are also ones who attack proposals to give criminal defendants more rights.

People are going to commit murders, and innocent people are going to be suspected. Solving the situation when the killer confesses to lawyers isn't the solution; not convicting innocents is the solution.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: KAZANI
That is not the point. What is important is to not allow deceit in principle and at the same time not to entangle honest consciences.
That's a slippery slope that no one wants to go down. My original statement stands about the problem being the lawyer and prosecutor. They were both just lazy.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: smack Down
Think of it the other way with out attorney client privilege the person would still be in jail.
Easy to say, when you are not one of those who had their life stolen from them by a foul legal bureaucracy.
You're right. Let's get rid of the attoenry client privilege so this one lawyer can violate it in this one situation, and nothing changes for lack of evidence, but you have now denied justice to perhaps millions of people in the future, and no one confesses anything to their lawyer so it doesn't do any other good. Way to consider the big picture in your post.

It's not easy to say, it's hard to say, but you don't offer anything but disaster for your recommendation - how unhelpful.

On another note, isn't it something how we'll chit chat about an incident like this, and it's forgotten in a couple of days?

Was there one post with something constructive about the situation, to help reduce the real problem that the guy was convicted despite being innocent at all?

Did any of the 'tough on crime' people here give any pause to the fact that that's the only thing they can really do to help with a tragic situation like this?

It's a bit frustrating how the 'discussion' so often consists of a few pot shots on an issue, a little hand-wringing, and off to the next innocent guy in jail, who doesn't get so 'lucky'.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Think of it the other way with out attorney client privilege the person would still be in jail.
How the FUCK did evolution create something as stupid as YOU?

And yeah, yeah, it's the anomalies that proves the fact.

He's an ugly fucking anomaly though.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I don't get it, so approved lying in court or in investigations... APPROVED LYING... that is ok on your fucked up side of the pond?

YAY for you?

We do it in another fashion, we convict the guilty and there will not even be a register for the ones who are freed.

The US is one FUCKED UP country, i mean, they can search your house and your car for NO reason, they can wiretap your phone, they can log your inernat connection... but this is nothing to worry about of course.

And the laaaaand of the bound and the home of he tied down?

I'm sorry, this shit just isn't right.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
John, you seem to be missing the point. let's review and see where.

There is something called attorney-client privilege. The purpose of it is to give the defendant the best defense available, rather than leaving his lawyer trying to defend him igorant of the facts.

It has some exceptions - if the guy says he's going to murder someone tomorrow, the privilege doesn't apply.

Now, what happened here is that a murderer who the police did not catch saw an innocent man convicted. We all would like to see him confess and let the innocent man go free while he serves instead, but that's not going to happen all the time, to say the least.

So, he tells his attorney the truth. The question then is, does the attorney 'turn him in', or keep it confidential despite the harm to the innocent man.

Justice could be done in this one case, if the attorney turns him in (and the police can get enough evidence to prove the other guy innocent. I've seen a case where they change the theory to say, 'ok, they both did it then').

But this would for all intent and purpose end the privilege for such confessions (whether formally, or because the story is told and people realize attorneys break it).

How would that affect the next millions of defendants? It would hurt them getting a fair trial, and they'd stop confessing to their attorneys.

In this case, if the privilege didn't exist, the guy wouldn't have told his attorney, and the innocent guy never would have been freed. I don't know why you attacked smackDown so viciously for making that very correct point.

The only way I see for you to actually do something helpful on this is to help improve the trial system so the innocent guy would be less likely convicted. You could make another exception to the privilege as you seem to want to but what would the point be when the guy doesn't tell his attorney?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: smack Down
Think of it the other way with out attorney client privilege the person would still be in jail.
Easy to say, when you are not one of those who had their life stolen from them by a foul legal bureaucracy.
It's not the legal system. It's the lawyer and the prosecutor. The former didn't convince his client to come clean and the latter just wanted to solve the case. Add the fact that the victim here was poor and black and this is considered normal.
It is the legal system that allows lawyers to lie. This is a fundamental flaw. You cannot expect justice when you allow lying. It is THAT simple.
The legal system doesn't allow lawyers to lie. The lawyer never lied about the case.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY