It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Innocent by Circumstance

-- By MikeAbend - 28 Feb 2010

Introduction

I don't think I'll ever be convicted of a serious crime. This determination is not the result of knowledge of my future actions, but from an estimation of my future circumstances. The American Justice system is just that—a system. And as a lawyer, I understand its flaws and inconsistencies, as well as its benefits and strengths. This paper seeks to address the system’s approach to epistemology and how status, rather than facts, can be more determinative of conviction.

The "System"

Conviction in this country results from a jury of our peers believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Rules of evidence control what factors the jury can consider, and the judge manages the courtroom and case to make sure the defendant receives a fair hearing. However, the possibility of a false conviction will never be eliminated. In fact, the possibility of someone being convicted for a crime they did not commit is much higher than one would care to believe (see Baye's theorem).

Inherent Imperfection

One of the inherent imperfections in the system that allows for false positives is the human’s inability to truly know the facts of the case. As noted in the FRANK paper, there is no mortal way to perfectly translate the true facts into the consciousness of a juror. As humans we are unable to know what actually occurred, and instead rely on how the story is portrayed through witnesses and evidence. We then interpret the information through our filters and schemas, resulting in a solipsistic determination of truth instead of universal truth. Thus there is always a possibility of jurors wrongly convicting an innocent.

The Risk We All Run

The risk of being framed or being at the wrong place at the wrong time applies to everyone subject to the jurisdiction of our justice system. In the infinite possibilities of occurrences, there exists one circumstance where any person could possibly be indicted for a crime. However, even though we are all subject to the same possibility of being wrongly accused, we are all not equally equipped to prove our innocence.

A Real World Experiment in "Justice"

Imagine two people wrongly accused of the same crime. Both face the same evidence and witnesses, and both with equally strong alibis. In a perfect system, both would be given the same punishment, whether deserved or not. However, in our society, a number of externalities will likely lead to divergent results.

Some of the most important factors that can lead to different results include wealth, race (both defendant and victim), and community.

Wealth

The first factor, wealth, seems the most obvious. Assuming I am wealthy and I am indicted for a crime, I will be able to hire the best defense team, bring in the best experts, and provide the most expensive evidence to prove my innocence. A person relying on the public defender system, however, will inevitably present a different case. Their lawyer will be overworked, less qualified, and with less resources to prove his innocence.

Race

Race is the hardest to prove but probably the most important factor in a jury unconsciously determining guilt. I understand this topic can be an emotional issue, and I do not mean to offend anyone when I attempt to dissect it. However, I strongly believe intelligent and respectful dialogue is necessary to understand and fix a legitimate social problem.

I don’t consider myself a prejudiced person, but I sometimes find myself thinking thoughts which could be construed as “racist”. These same attitudes pervade the typical juries in this country, and skin color undoubtedly plays a role in determining guilt or innocence. As a middle class white person with a JD from Columbia Law School, I stand a much better chance at avoiding conviction than my black neighbor who has not been provided the same opportunities.

The Supreme Court even recognized the disparity in McCleskey? v. Kemp, but ruled there is nothing unconstitutional about general community attitudes favoring one race over another (it is only unconstitutional if it can be proven discrimination was directed at a specific case).

Community

The last factor refers to a defendant’s ability to rely on the community for help. If I was wrongly indicted for a crime, I could call any number of lawyer family friends for advice and counseling on how to approach the issue. I may know a friend willing to represent me for free, or be referred to a specific lawyer specializing in an area relevant to my crime. I would have family and friends to support me, giving me hope while I deal with the issue. Basically, the community would have my back, and I would not have to go to trial alone.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are individuals with little to no community support. Many people do not have reliable family or friends, and are indeed very alone in this world. Their ability to fight the system would be severely diminished, and they stand a much worse chance at beating the charge.

What Can be Done?

These simple variables play an unbelievably important role in whether or not an individual is wrongly (or sometimes rightly) convicted. And I am sure there are many more which are less obvious but equally significant. Unfortunately, I cannot think of many realistic solutions to the problem they present. The goal of the legal system is not parity in conviction, but giving each person an opportunity to prove his or her innocence. The government is restricted by the Equal Protection Clause from providing a specified class of people a less stringent burden of proof. The only way to be completely certain of not wrongly convicting any person would be to convict no one (In terms of a statistics test, Beta=1.0)

One of the only ways to fight the disparity is for jurors to consider the aforementioned factors when determining guilt. By ignoring them, the legal system essentially puts certain classes of people at a disadvantage.

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, MikeAbend

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list