The title is a bit dramatic. It never got to a trial, because his alibi checked out.
One of the factors was him walking into frame of a taping of Curb your Enthusiasm. The main factor was his cellphone placing him at that location after answering a call that pinged off a tower near the stadium 20mins before the murder which was 20 miles away. There was also footage from the stadium that showed a person in his seat, but resolution was not good enough to be dismissed from that alone. Even the shows footage did not clear him from charges, it was the cellphone location data.
The real tragedy was the clerical error:
"Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later."
On the positive:
"In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation."
If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him. And yet, a man without truthful evidence against him was almost put to death row. Why is that? Have we stopped caring about Blackstone's Formulation in our zeal to imprison everyone even possibly guilty?
He was not "almost put to death row". There was no trial for that to even be a possibility. Instead, a man without truthful evidence against him had the charges dismissed.
Yes, but, the case was only dismissed when he had a positive alibi against the charges, when the charges should only happen when there is positive evidence against him
I wonder how the fact that many innocent people do land in death row is relevant in the discussion about one case where someone didn't.
Seriously tho, of course this is relevant. Either your authorities have extremely high confidence, beyond even unreasonable doubt proof or they don't. These are cases where people who didn't do it came close to the danger of being wrongfully executed by the state. If anything, this is a damning data point on how bad the executive and the judicial system are at only prosecuting when they have the proof. In fact it looks a lot like they will just take anybody who is remotely likely to have done it.
How does getting rid of the death penalty address the parent’s concern about false imprisonment? I understand the philosophical and practical arguments against the death penalty, but getting rid of it won’t forestall zealous prosecutors.
well it will help to forestall the person being dead if exonerating evidence comes along, although anticipating the next question - yes, they can of course die for other reasons in prison, but not having any stats to back it up I will just state my very strong suspicion that most people on death row who die in prison do so because the death penalty was applied.
> I know in the US some believe that cops should be allowed to execute certain people, when they just look at them wrong
My guy... touch some grass. No one sane believes that.
You took a discussion about a man being exonerated from a potential murder charge and twisted it to be about how Germany is superior to the US based upon what your news is force feeding you.
"What the news is force feeding you" — I have to admit my feeling purely based on your phrasings is that you are the one who probably lives on a diet of social media "news", but that is besides the point.
I am not German, I took German police killing statistics because Germany is the biggest EU nation with the most migration, to make it a fair comparison. The statistics for both US/Germany are from wikipedia and I averaged the numbers for the past decade to avoid the noise a little. If you can't handle these facts I am deeply sorry, but maybe you should reflect on how you rejecting reality might in fact make the problem worse for your country.
> No one sane believes that
I didn't claim they are sane. You have a major TV "news" station whose now disgraced former host used the defence of "no reasonable person would take this serious" in a court of law. And this is the most widely watched news station in the US. Just saying.
I said 'your' news, not 'the' news. Believe it or not, but what is shown on different stations is, in fact, different. Social media has more net negatives than positives, so I mostly avoid it.
I neither claimed you are German nor that I deny any facts. The very way you keep phrasing american policies or american things by stating it as 'your police force' or 'your news station' what leads me to believe that you are in fact not american. Thus how would you know how the police interact with citizens over here if all you injest is what your news is feeding you?
You agreeing with me that only the insane believe those facts, proves my entire point. Why would anyone sane believe that police can just indiscriminately shoot people? We don't, and attempting to classify an entire nations people based upon what the insane belive, is insane.
You can release someone from prison, but it generally does not happen. And legal system does NOT care about your guilt or innocence after you have been sentenced.
Even if there is clear and unambiguous proof that you was factually innocent, legal system is setup to ignore it. There is no innocence pathway out of prison once you was sentenced.
That's the state of the system right now, but it doesn't have to stay this way. It doesn't look like there's much hope for it given the current political direction, but it's possible that the system will improve over the coming decades. An innocent person sentenced to prison today can still be released at that point, but an innocent person murdered by the state can't be unmurdered.
And while I can't imagine what it would be like to be locked up for such a long time while innocent, I doubt every such innocent prisoner would prefer being dead.
The innocence project has an interest in showing the justice system to be more capricious and random than it really is. The guy was exculpated by the evidence, and the system worked as intended.
Yes it has problems but the headline and story are obscuring what really happened here. The guy was nowhere near death row.
But only because of a pure fluke. If not for that extraordinary evidence, would they have been exonerated? I'm not saying justice is useless and broken (at least not in this way), but innocent people being found guilty on insufficient evidence does happen and far more often than people would think. It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but the people it happens to are usually the kind of people who others are already biased against and are unlikely to want to help, e.g the poor, drug addicts, and minorities.
I was helping with a murder case, it was a little over five years since the crime, and the defendant asked me if I knew if there was a way to get cellphone location data as he said he had left the scene of the crime about an hour before the incident was held to happen, and returned about an hour afterwards.
Nobody had thought to get this data before. I called Verizon but I was told they only hold location data for five years and had already erased it.
For other reasons I believe the defendant to be innocent. He was put to trial three times for the crime; his first two guilty verdicts were overturned on appeal before he plead guilty to the minimum to get the process over with and have a near release date.
It was actually a very disturbing case because of police misconduct. Watch the documentary. They built a strong case out of nothing, and they were never punished. So, it's really a story about technology advancing and professionals going above and beyond to help this guy escape what had become a guilty until proven innocent case.
It's not dramatic at all. Without proof of his innocence, it could very well have gone to trial and resulted in a conviction, thanks to people's belief in the reliability of "eyewitness testimony". This case alone should show just how useless and flimsy eyewitness testimony is.
It was not the show that "saved" him; it was cellphone location data that got the charges dismissed. He was never on trial with the possibility of death row because it never got that far.
Not when it was taped an hour and 22 minutes before the murder
> "The discovery seemed a home run for Juan, who by then had been in jail over a month. Still, the prosecutor argued that the footage was from 9:10 p.m. — and the murder had occurred at 10:32. Juan ostensibly could have left early, driven to the scene of the crime, and still had time to kill Puebla."
Not true for jail; only probable cause or reasonable suspicion is required to lock someone up awaiting a court date. Which, of course, can easily ruin someone's life (missing work, deepening debts, the accusation itself can damage reputation). In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out. It's a huge structural problem with our justice system that spits in the face of "innocent until proven guilty." Any attempt to change it though is met with backlash about not being sufficiently tough on crime, and letting dangerous criminals walking the streets, preventing our law enforcement from doijg their jobs, etc.
> In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out.
The false imprisonment & settlement had to do with the clerical error that had him report back to jail after being cleared of charges. (an ongoing problem in its own right)
It is a completely separate issue from being locked up while charges were pending.
Why would you think that? Cell phone ping data is stored for a good amount of time and generated by a 3rd party that has no involvement in the case. Of course the phone can be given to someone else, but it has advantages over suspect generated data.
The last issue you noted. There was a notorious Instagram page for criminals that noted this as one of the key things to do before committing crime — have an accomplice keep your phone.
He was in jail for a month, all because some idiot thought he looked like the killer. He could have gone on trial, and much worse, if he didn't have solid evidence proving it wasn't him.
Countless people have been imprisoned and executed just because of eyewitness testimony. How many black men have been killed because some white person who thinks they all look alike said on the stand "it was him!"? Eyewitness testimony shouldn't even be allowed, because it's so unreliable.
He was never facing death row; there was no trial for that to be a possibility. The unnecessary speculation of death row has no barring on this story.
There are real cases that have made it to trial where your argument is better suited. He was in jail for a month, but not prison (there is a difference here) and nowhere near death row. I didn't see where the reason was, my guess is he could not afford bail (a separate problem altogether from this story). Prosecutors had reason to believe it was him; not only from an eye witness but because he had a record and had motive.
>> "..Martha Puebla, who had recently testified at a preliminary hearing about a gang murder in which Juan’s brother Mario was charged as an accessory. (Mario was convicted and is currently serving time.) Authorities argued that Juan — who had been in the courtroom during the hearing — had killed Puebla in retaliation for cooperating with police."
The NYPost article hints all the drama over this case is for a Netflix documentary:
>> "As covered in the Netflix documentary “Long Shot,” out Friday, Juan’s innocence would ultimately rest on a near brush with fame — more specifically, with Larry David and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
If not for the involvement of Curb Your Enthusiasm and a documentary, this would simply be another case that got dismissed from an alibi checking out and never making so much as a local community newsletter. Thus, the title is dramatic as it does not accurately summarize the truth of the story.
Please explain; the fact that a single eyewitness is unreliable (and I agree that they are,) does not mean that the consideration of a jury of one’s peers would be.
First I'd point out that people living in the same city as someone accused is not necessarily a peer, even if they are considered as such for the purposes of a jury. Are a bunch of subtly racist blue collar white voters the peer of an Oxford educated immigrant Kenyan doctor? Just to use a clear example.
That aside, people are notoriously uninformed, and notoriously lack basic critical reasoning skills. Look at the sheer number of people who voted the way they did in the last US election because they incorrectly correlated cheaper prices with the guy who was president at the time.
Odds are a jury is unreliable because they aren't going to put in the effort to properly evaluate the evidence and lack the knowledge and motivation to make a truly impartial and educated conclusion.
Not to mention the way a judge will deliberately limit the information a Jury has access to, and not always ethically, such as barring mention or education about jury nullification being an option.
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
> “Can you imagine had Melissa not asked for a snack?” Juan marveled.
(…)
> Juan was released, but couldn’t catch a break. Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later. The tombs had just been rocked by racial unrest after a murder inside, and Juan was actually afraid “I would be killed.”
> Melnik had assumed it would be cleared up in 24 hours. Instead, Juan, a declared-innocent man, was there for two hell-filled weeks.
> In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation.
a settlement just short circuits the process. Without a settlement, it goes to court and, depending on the jurisdiction and case details, decided by a judge or a jury, and again depending on the jurisdiction and case details, penalties are decided by a judge or a jury.
Really it's pretty similar to criminal court with the exception that neither party will have a criminal charge or criminal judgement against them at the end of it. No one will go to jail.
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
Why is a PA able to stop a ticket holder from going to their seats just cause a show is filming at the same time a game is on? Seems shitty for anyone that bought a ticket that day.
I guess this was coordinated with the event organizer; perhaps the filming happened in a way that wouldn’t interfere with watching the actual event; and the ticket holders were instructed to follow the PA’s guidance.
Related:
> Once a friend of mine called me excitedly after she attended a football game in Massachusetts. There were signs everwhere that announced that they were filming the crowd for a Warner Brothers Music video and by giving your ticket for entry you are giving permission for your image to appear in this video.
Ticket holders have to follow instructions from stadium staff. My point was that stadium staff decided to allow filming - not sure why to focus on the PA at this point, they’re likely allowed to do that.
The focus isn't on the PA, sure they're just the hand of the studio. My point is that it's crappy that the studio allows filming to interfere with and block ticket holders from going to their seats.
I am firmly in the camp of the justice system should never execute anyone. It's a one way door that presumes the system is infallible and we've had proof after proof of cases where the system failed.
Not even sentences. I've known multiple people who have been incarcerated over a decade on allegations in pre-trail detention ("jail"). You don't need a sentence to lose years of your life.
The justice system relies on the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That standard doesn’t mean “proved to be impossible to be innocent.”
In a system that is in a population of millions of people, there are bound to be edge cases where there’s a lot of damning evidence and people look guilty who just aren’t.
It’s one of the many arguments against capital punishment. It can’t be undone.
> Some of them are unlikely to ever integrate back into normal society.
This is an indictment of the system itself. If it damages innocent people who are wrongfully jailed so badly, how can anyone ever hope it'll turn actual criminals into citizens?
It really sounds like the prosecution had exactly zero evidence that this man was guilty, but determined to prosecute him anyway, rather than “lose”. Disgusting.
The title is a bit dramatic. It never got to a trial, because his alibi checked out.
One of the factors was him walking into frame of a taping of Curb your Enthusiasm. The main factor was his cellphone placing him at that location after answering a call that pinged off a tower near the stadium 20mins before the murder which was 20 miles away. There was also footage from the stadium that showed a person in his seat, but resolution was not good enough to be dismissed from that alone. Even the shows footage did not clear him from charges, it was the cellphone location data.
The real tragedy was the clerical error:
"Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later."
On the positive: "In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation."
This should be disturbing.
If there is a true alibi exonerating someone, then there would have been no truthful evidence against him. And yet, a man without truthful evidence against him was almost put to death row. Why is that? Have we stopped caring about Blackstone's Formulation in our zeal to imprison everyone even possibly guilty?
He was not "almost put to death row". There was no trial for that to even be a possibility. Instead, a man without truthful evidence against him had the charges dismissed.
Yes, but, the case was only dismissed when he had a positive alibi against the charges, when the charges should only happen when there is positive evidence against him
Aren't there cases whose innocence has been discovered after they have been on death row?
Yes, but that is not this case.
And that's relevant how?
I wonder how the fact that many innocent people do land in death row is relevant in the discussion about one case where someone didn't.
Seriously tho, of course this is relevant. Either your authorities have extremely high confidence, beyond even unreasonable doubt proof or they don't. These are cases where people who didn't do it came close to the danger of being wrongfully executed by the state. If anything, this is a damning data point on how bad the executive and the judicial system are at only prosecuting when they have the proof. In fact it looks a lot like they will just take anybody who is remotely likely to have done it.
The quickest fix is to get rid of the death penalty
How does getting rid of the death penalty address the parent’s concern about false imprisonment? I understand the philosophical and practical arguments against the death penalty, but getting rid of it won’t forestall zealous prosecutors.
well it will help to forestall the person being dead if exonerating evidence comes along, although anticipating the next question - yes, they can of course die for other reasons in prison, but not having any stats to back it up I will just state my very strong suspicion that most people on death row who die in prison do so because the death penalty was applied.
[flagged]
> I know in the US some believe that cops should be allowed to execute certain people, when they just look at them wrong
My guy... touch some grass. No one sane believes that.
You took a discussion about a man being exonerated from a potential murder charge and twisted it to be about how Germany is superior to the US based upon what your news is force feeding you.
”No one sane believes that.”
That is a fallacious argument of the ”no true scotsman” variety.
"What the news is force feeding you" — I have to admit my feeling purely based on your phrasings is that you are the one who probably lives on a diet of social media "news", but that is besides the point.
I am not German, I took German police killing statistics because Germany is the biggest EU nation with the most migration, to make it a fair comparison. The statistics for both US/Germany are from wikipedia and I averaged the numbers for the past decade to avoid the noise a little. If you can't handle these facts I am deeply sorry, but maybe you should reflect on how you rejecting reality might in fact make the problem worse for your country.
> No one sane believes that
I didn't claim they are sane. You have a major TV "news" station whose now disgraced former host used the defence of "no reasonable person would take this serious" in a court of law. And this is the most widely watched news station in the US. Just saying.
I said 'your' news, not 'the' news. Believe it or not, but what is shown on different stations is, in fact, different. Social media has more net negatives than positives, so I mostly avoid it.
I neither claimed you are German nor that I deny any facts. The very way you keep phrasing american policies or american things by stating it as 'your police force' or 'your news station' what leads me to believe that you are in fact not american. Thus how would you know how the police interact with citizens over here if all you injest is what your news is feeding you?
You agreeing with me that only the insane believe those facts, proves my entire point. Why would anyone sane believe that police can just indiscriminately shoot people? We don't, and attempting to classify an entire nations people based upon what the insane belive, is insane.
You can release someone from prison, but it generally does not happen. And legal system does NOT care about your guilt or innocence after you have been sentenced.
Even if there is clear and unambiguous proof that you was factually innocent, legal system is setup to ignore it. There is no innocence pathway out of prison once you was sentenced.
That's the state of the system right now, but it doesn't have to stay this way. It doesn't look like there's much hope for it given the current political direction, but it's possible that the system will improve over the coming decades. An innocent person sentenced to prison today can still be released at that point, but an innocent person murdered by the state can't be unmurdered.
And while I can't imagine what it would be like to be locked up for such a long time while innocent, I doubt every such innocent prisoner would prefer being dead.
The innocence project has an interest in showing the justice system to be more capricious and random than it really is. The guy was exculpated by the evidence, and the system worked as intended.
Yes it has problems but the headline and story are obscuring what really happened here. The guy was nowhere near death row.
But only because of a pure fluke. If not for that extraordinary evidence, would they have been exonerated? I'm not saying justice is useless and broken (at least not in this way), but innocent people being found guilty on insufficient evidence does happen and far more often than people would think. It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but the people it happens to are usually the kind of people who others are already biased against and are unlikely to want to help, e.g the poor, drug addicts, and minorities.
I was helping with a murder case, it was a little over five years since the crime, and the defendant asked me if I knew if there was a way to get cellphone location data as he said he had left the scene of the crime about an hour before the incident was held to happen, and returned about an hour afterwards.
Nobody had thought to get this data before. I called Verizon but I was told they only hold location data for five years and had already erased it.
For other reasons I believe the defendant to be innocent. He was put to trial three times for the crime; his first two guilty verdicts were overturned on appeal before he plead guilty to the minimum to get the process over with and have a near release date.
Good lord, they keep 5 years of location data!? That's excessive.
Should call up the spooks -they probably keep it forever.
Pretty sure it's a legal requirement. In large part for the purpose of proving/disproving crime.
Couldn't he have just given his cell phone to someone else that night?
It was actually a very disturbing case because of police misconduct. Watch the documentary. They built a strong case out of nothing, and they were never punished. So, it's really a story about technology advancing and professionals going above and beyond to help this guy escape what had become a guilty until proven innocent case.
It's not dramatic at all. Without proof of his innocence, it could very well have gone to trial and resulted in a conviction, thanks to people's belief in the reliability of "eyewitness testimony". This case alone should show just how useless and flimsy eyewitness testimony is.
> It's not dramatic at all.
It was not the show that "saved" him; it was cellphone location data that got the charges dismissed. He was never on trial with the possibility of death row because it never got that far.
TV footage seems like a WAY better alibi than cell phone pings.
Not when it was taped an hour and 22 minutes before the murder
> "The discovery seemed a home run for Juan, who by then had been in jail over a month. Still, the prosecutor argued that the footage was from 9:10 p.m. — and the murder had occurred at 10:32. Juan ostensibly could have left early, driven to the scene of the crime, and still had time to kill Puebla."
Somebody needs to tell them that guilt is what has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt...
Not true for jail; only probable cause or reasonable suspicion is required to lock someone up awaiting a court date. Which, of course, can easily ruin someone's life (missing work, deepening debts, the accusation itself can damage reputation). In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out. It's a huge structural problem with our justice system that spits in the face of "innocent until proven guilty." Any attempt to change it though is met with backlash about not being sufficiently tough on crime, and letting dangerous criminals walking the streets, preventing our law enforcement from doijg their jobs, etc.
> In this case the accused was awarded damages, but that's not usually how this plays out.
The false imprisonment & settlement had to do with the clerical error that had him report back to jail after being cleared of charges. (an ongoing problem in its own right)
It is a completely separate issue from being locked up while charges were pending.
Why would you think that? Cell phone ping data is stored for a good amount of time and generated by a 3rd party that has no involvement in the case. Of course the phone can be given to someone else, but it has advantages over suspect generated data.
The last issue you noted. There was a notorious Instagram page for criminals that noted this as one of the key things to do before committing crime — have an accomplice keep your phone.
He was in jail for a month, all because some idiot thought he looked like the killer. He could have gone on trial, and much worse, if he didn't have solid evidence proving it wasn't him.
Countless people have been imprisoned and executed just because of eyewitness testimony. How many black men have been killed because some white person who thinks they all look alike said on the stand "it was him!"? Eyewitness testimony shouldn't even be allowed, because it's so unreliable.
He was never facing death row; there was no trial for that to be a possibility. The unnecessary speculation of death row has no barring on this story.
There are real cases that have made it to trial where your argument is better suited. He was in jail for a month, but not prison (there is a difference here) and nowhere near death row. I didn't see where the reason was, my guess is he could not afford bail (a separate problem altogether from this story). Prosecutors had reason to believe it was him; not only from an eye witness but because he had a record and had motive.
>> "..Martha Puebla, who had recently testified at a preliminary hearing about a gang murder in which Juan’s brother Mario was charged as an accessory. (Mario was convicted and is currently serving time.) Authorities argued that Juan — who had been in the courtroom during the hearing — had killed Puebla in retaliation for cooperating with police."
The NYPost article hints all the drama over this case is for a Netflix documentary:
>> "As covered in the Netflix documentary “Long Shot,” out Friday, Juan’s innocence would ultimately rest on a near brush with fame — more specifically, with Larry David and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
If not for the involvement of Curb Your Enthusiasm and a documentary, this would simply be another case that got dismissed from an alibi checking out and never making so much as a local community newsletter. Thus, the title is dramatic as it does not accurately summarize the truth of the story.
It shows how useless and flimsy the jury system is also.
Please explain; the fact that a single eyewitness is unreliable (and I agree that they are,) does not mean that the consideration of a jury of one’s peers would be.
First I'd point out that people living in the same city as someone accused is not necessarily a peer, even if they are considered as such for the purposes of a jury. Are a bunch of subtly racist blue collar white voters the peer of an Oxford educated immigrant Kenyan doctor? Just to use a clear example.
That aside, people are notoriously uninformed, and notoriously lack basic critical reasoning skills. Look at the sheer number of people who voted the way they did in the last US election because they incorrectly correlated cheaper prices with the guy who was president at the time.
Odds are a jury is unreliable because they aren't going to put in the effort to properly evaluate the evidence and lack the knowledge and motivation to make a truly impartial and educated conclusion.
Not to mention the way a judge will deliberately limit the information a Jury has access to, and not always ethically, such as barring mention or education about jury nullification being an option.
More details along with a still: https://nypost.com/2017/09/23/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-saved...
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
> “Can you imagine had Melissa not asked for a snack?” Juan marveled.
(…)
> Juan was released, but couldn’t catch a break. Due to a clerical error, he had to report back to county jail two days later. The tombs had just been rocked by racial unrest after a murder inside, and Juan was actually afraid “I would be killed.”
> Melnik had assumed it would be cleared up in 24 hours. Instead, Juan, a declared-innocent man, was there for two hell-filled weeks.
> In 2007, Juan received $320,000 in a settlement of his civil lawsuit against the LAPD and the city of Los Angeles for false imprisonment, misconduct and defamation.
What happens if you dont accept a settlement for something like false imprisonment?
a settlement just short circuits the process. Without a settlement, it goes to court and, depending on the jurisdiction and case details, decided by a judge or a jury, and again depending on the jurisdiction and case details, penalties are decided by a judge or a jury.
Really it's pretty similar to criminal court with the exception that neither party will have a criminal charge or criminal judgement against them at the end of it. No one will go to jail.
> They had been stopped by a production assistant so as not to interrupt filming. But for some reason, the PA had a last-minute change of heart and let Juan and little Melissa walk to their seats — and into the background of the show’s action.
Why is a PA able to stop a ticket holder from going to their seats just cause a show is filming at the same time a game is on? Seems shitty for anyone that bought a ticket that day.
I guess this was coordinated with the event organizer; perhaps the filming happened in a way that wouldn’t interfere with watching the actual event; and the ticket holders were instructed to follow the PA’s guidance.
Related:
> Once a friend of mine called me excitedly after she attended a football game in Massachusetts. There were signs everwhere that announced that they were filming the crowd for a Warner Brothers Music video and by giving your ticket for entry you are giving permission for your image to appear in this video.
Source: https://www.quora.com/How-did-directors-film-scenes-in-packe...
> perhaps the filming happened in a way that wouldn’t interfere with watching the actual event;
A PA being able to stop ticket holders from going back to their seats because they got a snack sounds like a lot of interference to me.
Ticket holders have to follow instructions from stadium staff. My point was that stadium staff decided to allow filming - not sure why to focus on the PA at this point, they’re likely allowed to do that.
The focus isn't on the PA, sure they're just the hand of the studio. My point is that it's crappy that the studio allows filming to interfere with and block ticket holders from going to their seats.
It is worrisome someone would have to prove innocence to remain off death row.
I am firmly in the camp of the justice system should never execute anyone. It's a one way door that presumes the system is infallible and we've had proof after proof of cases where the system failed.
All sentences are a one-way door. You don't get years of your life back, or the skills that atrophy in jail if you had any before.
If you are sentenced falsely, would you liked to be killed or you would choose to spend some time in jail and be released when proved innocent?
What you are giving here is really false equivalence which contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation.
If I have to spend 20+ years then my life as I know it is over because there’s no way I’m coming out the same person that went in.
But you are coming out, nonetheless.
Are we talking life sentences, or a year or two?
Not even sentences. I've known multiple people who have been incarcerated over a decade on allegations in pre-trail detention ("jail"). You don't need a sentence to lose years of your life.
Indeed. But a death penalty can't even give you back your remaining ones once you're found innocent, so it's worse in some sense.
The land of "human rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolutions_concerning_death_p...
The justice system relies on the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That standard doesn’t mean “proved to be impossible to be innocent.”
In a system that is in a population of millions of people, there are bound to be edge cases where there’s a lot of damning evidence and people look guilty who just aren’t.
It’s one of the many arguments against capital punishment. It can’t be undone.
> The justice system relies on the concept of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Does it, in reality? With trials and layers being life destructibly expensive?
>It’s one of the many arguments against capital punishment. It can’t be undone.
Neither can time spent behind bars.
The time served can’t be undone but the incarceration can.
And there's little details like $320k settlements for wrongful imprisonment to help transition back out of prison... Harder when you're dead.
I’ve seen interviews with people how have been wrongfully imprisoned for extended periods and they’re changed in irreversible ways.
Some of them are unlikely to ever integrate back into normal society.
> Some of them are unlikely to ever integrate back into normal society.
This is an indictment of the system itself. If it damages innocent people who are wrongfully jailed so badly, how can anyone ever hope it'll turn actual criminals into citizens?
That’s also true. Though I’d see it as a separate, albeit related and just as crucial, point.
It really sounds like the prosecution had exactly zero evidence that this man was guilty, but determined to prosecute him anyway, rather than “lose”. Disgusting.
Unfortunately this is quite common in some legal jurisdictions.