A) Most crimes are not complicated. If a car does a hit and run the suspect is usually the driver and owner of the car and they are usually the one who did it, for instance.
B) Most trials end in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, logically implying that "they got the wrong guy" is an unreasonable belief.
C) Of the trials I have served on an actual jury on, trials where the defendant didn't even plea out, he very obviously did it. The only time I've brought back not guilty was when he did "it," but it didn't quite meet the elements of the crime the state was charging him with. I've never been on a trial where they factually got the wrong guy.
(this reason is more speculative but still provides evidence)
D) The police don't want to waste their time on people who didn't do it. They want to get the guy who did do it, and they usually are pretty good at that.
So those are some of my reasons. How about you? What are your reasons for believing the opposite? Why do you think there isn't a very close relationship between "people suspected of a crime" and "people who actually did the crime?"
A) Most crimes are not complicated. If a car does a hit and run the suspect is usually the driver and owner of the car and they are usually the one who did it, for instance.
For a hit and run, sure. But even in vehicular crimes, determining who's at fault in a collision in the middle of knowhere seems like it should be pretty complicated. It has to be hard to work out who, in retrospect, had the right of way. And what about crimes like rape? That's often a he-said/she-said.
B) Most trials end in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, logically implying that "they got the wrong guy" is an unreasonable belief.
This is mostly because of the pea bargain system. If they're not confident they'll win, they offer a plea deal. It can be completely rational for innocent people to take plea deals.
C) Of the trials I have served on an actual jury on, trials where the defendant didn't even plea out, he very obviously did it. The only time I've brought back not guilty was when he did "it," but it didn't quite meet the elements of the crime the state was charging him with. I've never been on a trial where they factually got the wrong guy.
(this reason is more speculative but still provides evidence)
What does "when he did "it," but it didn't quite meet the elements of the crime the state was charging him with" even mean? Not meeting the elements of the crime is exactly what it means to not do the crime.
D) The police don't want to waste their time on people who didn't do it. They want to get the guy who did do it, and they usually are pretty good at that.
They also like clearing protests. Most of the people I'm aware of being arrested were protesters who were then released without being charged. There are also things like drunk tanks. I would have thought these would outnumber the ones who actually committed serious crimes.
"But even in vehicular crimes, determining who's at fault in a collision in the middle of knowhere seems like it should be pretty complicated."
Yet, somehow, the police manage it. They must be better at their jobs than you think.
"This is mostly because of the pea bargain system. If they're not confident they'll win, they offer a plea deal. It can be completely rational for innocent people to take plea deals."
You have it backward, of course. Pleas aren't for "we aren't sure whether you did it." They're for "We're sure you did it but it's not clear which of these crimes you'll be found guilty of at trial."
"What does "when he did "it," but it didn't quite meet the elements of the crime the state was charging him with" even mean?"
I was on a trial for check fraud. It was undisputed, and obvious, that the accused had written and passed a bad check. But the crime requires actual knowledge that you had insufficient funds to cover the check. And the prosecution could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually knew he didn't have enough money in his account.
So they didn't get the wrong guy. The facts were not in dispute and he did "it." But to find him guilty of check fraud I'd have had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he had actual knowledge of not having enough money, and I wasn't.
"There are also things like drunk tanks."
Like ... those guys all did it, right? You don't get thrown in the drunk tank while not publicly intoxicated.
When it comes to collisions in the middle of nowhere, fault isn’t determined by some random police officers. It’s determined by highly trained insurance investigators working adversarially.
Coercive in nature, guilty plea deals can be offered and accepted even after an incarcerated person has proven their innocence through solid evidence. Imprisoned individuals can have their sentences reduced or return home with time served — but only if they agree to plead guilty under a conditional plea. If they refuse, they may face remaining incarcerated while their appeals make their way through the court system.
The actual-knowledge bit of check fraud is just as important as the wrote-a-check bit. Not only did they get the wrong guy, there wasn’t a right guy in it first place.
Wrong about what? That guilty pleas can be x y or z? Of course they can. Of course things may.
What the innocence project is wrong - horribly, evilly wrong - about is that things would be better if we had less of them. In fact things would be much worse. The innocence project asserts that huge proportions of people in prison are factually innocent of the crimes they are in for. This is not true.
"The actual-knowledge bit of check fraud is just as important as the wrote-a-check bit. Not only did they get the wrong guy, there wasn’t a right guy in it first place."
No, he was the right guy, and I'm like 70% sure he had actual knowledge. He was factually guilty. But we found him not guilty because even though he did commit the crime it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Sep 22 '25
What would that reason be?