Philosophy
Just Because You Are Innocent Doesn't Mean You Have the Right Under Due Process To Demonstrate Your Innocence
In a case decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court last Thursday, it was decided that you do not have the right to DNA test state's evidence against you, even when that evidence could demonstrate your innocence. Chief Justice Roberts writes for the majority,
"DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty. The availability of new DNA testing technologies, however, cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt. The task of establishing rules to harness DNA?s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system belongs primarily to the legislature."
We have a criminal justice system based upon the false Enlightment principle that humans are rational beings whose beliefs are formed by logic applied to observational evidence. We know that jury decisions are based at least in part upon prevailing social biases (which tend to work in the favor of well off whites and against those of lower class or other racial backgrounds) and are influenced by effects of social psychology, for example, groupthink.
Now, we have a means that would correct for these defects, freeing the wrongly convicted. Allowing that one has a right to this technology would be tantamount to admitting that the system contains a pragmatic flaw that can be largely corrected. But this admission of a weakness would be revolutionary in the way we see the law. Hence, when the Constitution says one has a right to due process of law, we may allow that this includes a right to effective representation, but only if it is not so effective that it might actually work. It is one thing for professioal baseball to cite tradition in order to refuse to abandon the use of home plate umpires to make ball and strike calls knowing they will not be consistent and blow a few. It is quite another for the Supreme Court to do the same thing with people's freedom and lives.
-
Procedural Justice And Fan Interference
One notion of justice is what philosophers call "procedural justice," that is, justice is playing according to the rules. On this view, process is the key to a just result. Everyone agrees to to the rules beforehand and it is the objective application...
-
Can You Argue From Ignorance?
There is a standard reasoning error called "argument from ignorance" which is asserting that a lack of proof for something is proof of its falsity. For example, before I was about to teach this fallacy for the first time I came into the room to find the...
-
Annie Dookhan Sentenced
"Mass. chemist pleads guilty in drug lab scandal" by Bob Salsberg November 22nd, 2013 boston.com A former chemist at a Massachusetts drug lab who admitted faking test results in criminal cases pleaded guilty Friday and was sentenced to prison in a scandal...
-
A Few Years In Jail For A Serious Crime--annie Dookhan
"Mass. lab scandal defendant asks for leniency" October 18th, 2013 SFGate Prosecutors are urging a judge to sentence a Massachusetts chemist to up to seven years in prison if she pleads guilty in a drug-testing lab scandal. Annie Dookhan faces allegations...
-
San Francisco Police Lab And Deborah Madden
Still trying to perfect the judicial system. "Scandal at San Francisco police lab may unravel hundreds of cases" After criminologist admits stealing drugs, officials discover a past conviction that should have been disclosed before she testified at trials....
Philosophy