I don't think there's a good way to measure that. If you go by conviction rate, it's something like 75% +/-10% depending on jurisdiction and grading. Then you'd have to adjust for the 2-10% of wrongful convictions for the incarcerated. Then adjust for the people who commited a crime but were not convicted, but I haven't seen stats on that.

Even if we all agree that minimizing type I errors (false positives) is of paramount importance, the optimal design of the system depends heavily on the true positive rate at the top of the funnel.

Your 2-10% wrongful conviction rate matches the rate capital defendants are legally found to have been wrongfully convicted[3]. They're a good subset to focus on because they're the cases get the most resources and attention, and are the only category of defendants who regularly get volunteer lawyers for postconviction review.

But that can't prove that the system doesn't wrongfully convict at a higher rate. If public defenders are underfunded that will reduce their ability to prove wrongful convictions, for example. Note that a successful postconviction petition is much harder without a good record established by the original trial counsel. The Glossip case is a good example of how "innocence is not enough" to get exoneration.

(Your stats are also off by a bit. The average state conviction rate is around 80%, but there's way more than 10% variance. California is up at 94% while Florida is at 55%. [1] Meanwhile the feds are all the way up at 99.6%. [2]

[1]: Table B-1 on https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html [2]: https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-ab...

Getting a verdict overturned based on procedural issues isn't as easy as popular culture makes out. You have to show both that your rights were violated and that no reasonable jury could have possibly found you guilty if your rights weren't violated. Simply having signed statements from your jurors that they wouldn't have found you guilty if they knew what the prosecutors covered up isn't sufficient, for example.

(And it wouldn't "almost certainly" lead to a tossed conviction. The defendant would have a chance but not a guarantee at getting a new trial. See the comment you replied to for details)

It’s definition is here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/criteria-for-inclusion-...

It includes acquittal or dismissal of charges after the original conviction was tossed. But that does not imply actual innocence. For example, if a key piece of evidence is excluded because of an unconstitutional search that could lead to acquittal or dismissal of charges.

The innocence thing isn't just death row. There are groups who have helped people who are not on death row, mostly using DNA. The majority of the people they help are not on death row. Sure, it could be higher. The point was that there is already what I would consider to be a high wrongful conviction rate. In my own experience, I think the wrongful conviction rate for non-custody offenses is multiple times higher.

What I meant to say is that death penalty eligible defendants get better representation that pretty much everyone else. So their wrongful conviction rate should be lower than average.

In what circumstances is arresting someone necessary or even beneficial for society on the whole? There are costs both to the people in terms of booking & housing someone in jail, and to the individual as for most folks not regularly dealing with law enforcement being arrested is at least somewhat traumatic.

Public defenders are doing noble work. They are also denied the resources necessary to perform that work with the same zeal seen in the prosecution side of the justice system.

For reference, I have being on the receiving end of an entirely unwarranted accusation for a trivial crime in the UK (which is often held up as being a good example of a fair system). It occupied an unbelievable amount of headspace and was hugely stressful. I'm educated, reasonably well off and white. The system felt very very powerful and unpredictable from my position and I was never even arrested (just accused, which is enough for the police to treat you as a perpetrator). If the prosecution had happened and had gone anywhere (it didn't) and I'd been convicted I would have got a small fine, but I was still far too worried that my innocence was insufficient to protect me. All the way through you're treated as though you are guilty, and the accuser is the "victim". Honestly, the only victim in the whole sorry affair was me.

I can't imagine what it must feel like if you're on the receiving end of an unwarranted accusation for a more serious crime. Especially if everyone thinks you're guilty because your have priors and "look guilty".

The solution is fixing the social safety net for the poor and disadvantaged. Not throwing people in prison for trying to survive and making mistakes along the way.

So, to clarify: if someone is clearly a violent criminal, are you really saying we should feel bad for them and assume they are a victim of “the system”? Do we drop charges? What’s the actionable plan for reducing violent crime?

Why do people have such a tiny, narrow view of life?

The approach is to try to reform them. Get them psychiatric help if that's what's needed. Put them in a prison that doesn't just punish them, but also teaches them how to be useful members of society.

On the other end, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Well before that point, make sure everyone has equal opportunities while growing up. Ensure all citizens get taught how to be responsible with money and how to make intelligent life decisions in school. This helps a lot by itself.

Despite the above, some people may still fail, due to bad luck or due to actually not being great students. For these, institute a "poverty floor" below which no one may fall. People who are not desperately poor are less likely to commit crimes.

Of course, yes some people are lazy. That's unfortunate. Lazy people should still get some money, for the simple reason that it's a lot cheaper than dealing with criminals and crime. Obviously we shouldn't give them too much, since then they stay lazy and/or it just drains our coffers dry.

Worse, some people are just plain bad. That's when you put them in prison. But even there you can attempt to reform them. Those who don't reform stay in prison or get rearrested soon enough. Those who do reform can get out and have a second chance.

If you think all the above is hypothetical, it's not. Many western countries apply (at least some subset of) the above policies. This is a of course a very short summary of a very large and nuanced topic.

Yes, absolutely. 100%. We should feel bad for people who find themselves in circumstances and life experiences that have driven them to violence. We should feel bad for sociopaths who inflict violence because the life and experience of a sociopath is objectively a sad thing. We should feel bad for non-sociopaths who were driven to desperation and extremes due to a lack of healthy coping mechanisms for stress and anger or anything else.

> Do we drop charges? What’s the actionable plan for reducing violent crime?

My comment isn't suggesting that dropping charges is going to fix the problem - it's the opposite. It's that we need a system of accountability that is a net-positive for society. Incarceration as-is in the US worsens the problem severely. It needs reform to be a place of actual rehabilitation and many people who need rehabilitation due to violent offenses absolutely need to be forced into doing so. But it needs to not be at the expense of their families, it needs to not further generational harm, and it needs to not harm the people being incarcerated. Harm for harm is a fucked up concept that doesn't help anyone except shallow people who crave a sense of justice, who are themselves inflicting violence too. People should leave prison in a better position than when they entered (in terms of dealing with their life better and in more healthy ways) and the opposite is happening. We're actively harming peaceful society with prisons today.

Restated:

Throwing people in prison does not fix the problem. We have tried it for a long time at various levels of intensity and it has provably not worked, and no additional level of intensity has improved things. We can't _just keep doing this_ and expect that at some point things will get better.

We need to address the root causes that lead so many people into situations where they find it reasonable or are desperate enough to commit those crimes. That's how you make a dent in this problem, and that's what we should work on transitioning to. Fix the top of the funnel, and you won't have nearly as many concentrated violent problems down at the bottom of it to deal with.

Pretty much what I'm saying is that jail time should be reserved solely for the violent.

Which isn't to say there should be _no_ answer to that question, but more that the answer to that question shouldn't also be the answer to all the other crime encountered. Not even all the violent crime, which is frequently a product not of the individual, but of the situation that individual is placed in.

None of the perpetrators were trying to survive or had any other excuses.

Poverty and other social disadvantages might breed crime, but they do not breed violence.

What we should do is stop locking people up for non-violent crimes and free up space for violent offenders.

Frankly they can stay locked up for all I care. They are a tiny enough minority that it wouldn't cost that much. We are causing irreparable damage to non-violent people by locking them up for minor crimes that can be rectified. We are basically feeding them to the real criminals and making them stronger.

They're all humans. Humans are largely a product of their environment. Sociopaths obviously exist, but most people in prison for violence are not sociopaths.

I am mentoring one who you mean. Left on the streets at 13.

That is the root cause of their trouble.

The baggage is incredibly difficult to get past. A lot of that is systemic.

And defense in general? Necessary, unless we intend on jailing lots of people who do not deserve it.

I also feel we need to break this down too. There is a big difference between felony violent criminals and the average Joe who gets caught up in a resisting or interfering charge.

Bluntly, I think you're lying.

One attorney I talked to was relatively inexpensive but I can tell I had a grudge against the cops and the justice system in general. They were not going to be a good pick

The second attorney I talked to said for $10,000 they can make this all go away. And they wouldn't file a tort. That seems more like a formalized punishment that I choose than justice.

And the last one was 2500 bucks she said I needed a trial told me why and that's the one I picked and it was a good experience overall. We filed the tort I got my money back and it was a couple of years and I came out clean.

So yeah, it does depend on specifics. And you're right to say that people shouldn't rule the public defender out. Good comment.

Given the contents of the rant, especially as it pertains to bail reform, I don’t think it is.

Your experience about jury duty is important, but it was not in Chicago. I grew up there. I get what he's talking about.

Depending on the neighborhood, things can get very unsafe very quickly. No one talks about "what a disgrace" when they can hear gunfire three blocks away.

Despite the salary schedules being the same (or similar), the State will always have more resources; they have forensic labs, and an army of investigators. The multifaceted mission of a prosecutor's office necessitates the resource disparity.

The Public Defender's priorities are much more focused; (1) provide criminal defense services for those in need, mainly the indigent, (2) influence criminal justice policy through by identifying judiciable appellate matters; and, (3) working with private defense attorneys to challenge prosecutorial policy on a broader level.

With offers from various state attorneys general and public defender offices, I selected the latter for the more focused mission. Yes, resources were scarce, dollars had to be selectively spent on experts to get the most bang for our buck. But you would be surprised at what a feisty PD can do with a handful of retired state police investigators to assist.

I would call this broad. How is the prosecutor's mission more multifaceted?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of anti-plaintiff reform. Justice isn't served when neither the plaintiff nor defense are doing anything.