Hacker News Reader

Comment by 93po | Hacker News Reader

> If you’re actually guilty, your defense is supposed to challenge the validity of the evidence the prosecution is using to convict you. Not lie to the court and hope your lies are more convincing than the prosecution’s evidence.

Ideally yes, but prosecution (and the entire process leading to arrest) lies and breaks the law and takes advantage in every way possible. It's a very dishonest process to try to be honest against.

View on HN

If you're innocent, you don't need to lie to your defense attorney.

If you're guilty, the system is not designed to protect you, and there's no reason why it should permit the guilty to commit perjury out of some desire to balance out (?) the fact that the prosecution and police sometimes lie as well.

What is a scenario where an innocent person needs to be allowed to lie to present an effective defense?

I don't think the person you're replying to is saying perjury should be legal. They're saying perjury might be a good idea sometimes. Especially if you're guilty, sometimes your only chance of staying out of prison does involve lying. A guilty person looking at 20 years would be reasonable to be unconcerned about whatever addition perjury charges might add (if they were even caught perjuring).

The fact that perjury might seem like a "good idea" to a criminal, or the only chance to stay out prison, doesn't mean it should be permitted.

The purpose of the justice system should not be to give guilty people the best chance to stay out of prison.

Yes, if you're guilty, lying may be your best defense. That doesn't mean the justice system should encourage it! If you're guilty, the justice systems want you to go to jail. All the protections exist to protect innocent people.

Ah, so of course you yourself, or someone you care about, would never be a guilty person, right? You would never find yourself, say, breaking a law that you didn't know about, or doing something that's technically a criminal act but seemed innocent enough at the time (the classic insider trader's lament), nor would you ever have a close family member who is charged with a serious crime. Or if you did, you would bravely accept the judgement of the court without taking exception.

You know, it would be terrible if I was found guilty of willful copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which carries "A fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense"[1]. If I had committed such a terrible act as torrenting seven movies, the insult to my conscience would surely move me to accept the felony penalties with civic stoicism - after such twisted malice from myself, the additional moral consequences of pleading "Not Guilty" would be too great to bear.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...

You can't design a justice system around making it easy for you to escape responsibility for complying with laws you disagree with.

I'm not expressing an opinion on whether throwing someone in jail for torrenting movies is the right moral outcome. What I am saying is that a system which officially says "Yes, lying in court is legally permissible as long as you're lying about something related to a bullshit law" is not exactly sustainable.

I think the DMCA is a stupid and unfair law. The mafia probably thinks RICO is a stupid and unfair law. Someone who is a habitual drunk driver (but is convinced they can 'handle their liquor' better than the general public) probably thinks drunk driving laws are stupid and unfair. What of it?

That’s often said, but this public defender seems to think otherwise and he’s certainly seen the inside a courtroom much more than I have.

But he seems like an odd person [1] and I wonder what might be atypical about his experiences? It would be interesting to read the experiences of other public defenders. It’s their job to look for problems.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4rsRuNaE4uJrnYeTQ/defunding-...

Did you link the correct article? The author really says nothing about the legal system and is only reflecting that their 100% ACAB attitude maybe requires more nuance. This same author has written other pieces that plainly call the legal system an unfair joke (Eleven Words article specifically).

Regardless of any public defender's opinion, I am inclined to not fully respect opinions of people who are deeply embedded in the thing they have an opinion about, especially if it's in defense of the thing they're deeply embedded in. Humans lose perspective very easily, and especially when their identity is wrapped up in it.

I shared that to show that he has a somewhat odd background, not because it's directly relevant.

Yes, it's possible that insiders might have a biased view. However, in general, I do respect the opinions of people who have had experiences and write about them more than the comments of random internet strangers who, as far as I know, have no experience.

I know a few PDs, and I also worked in a court. The story checks out to me. I don’t think you’ll find a lot of PDs who will say cops and prosecutors regularly target genuinely innocent people. For the most part the job is to make sure all the boxes are checked and that the prosecution matches the actual crime.

Oh, you haven't met a lot of PDs, then. They'll tell you cops lie literally all the time and will make up evidence if they decide they don't like you. It's just easier and there's zero consequences for them if they're caught.

I know quite a few PDs. Ask the ones you know: are the accused guilty nonetheless? In other words, is the problem procedural or substantive?

Do the cops “breaking procedure” know for certain if the accused are guilty? How can they?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com