[zupreme]

What is unfortunate is that it took going to appeal to force the judge to allow the code review at all.

Without, at minimum, an independent review (and preferably open source code) the software and lab processes being used constitute an inscrutable "black box" process within which any judgment can be made, for any conceivable reason, with life-changing effects for the defendant (and for the victims of a crime if, for example, a rapist or murderer is set free by a non-match decision).

One could even say that unreviewable code here falls under the umbrella of "secret evidence", which much of the world already knows can be easily misused and/or misapplied at the whim of the court.

[vmception]

People sometimes ask me what my “number” is, like how much net worth or “money” I want, what would I do with it

I say “I want to be able to afford appeals court where my rights matter”

Infinite appeals court!

Most people plea out, cant make bail, dont have counsel buddy buddy with the judge enough to get you bail, and lose the ability to keep good counsel for more and more motions and appeals

I want that, there is almost no pride in American rights if you cant afford them. People tie their whole identity to a system they arent even part of

[ineedasername]

Or just make the entire system based on a sort of "public defender" model. As it stands, a person accused of a crime and then found innocent has still been punished without even being found guilty due to enormous legal bills. It is a highly asymmetric power structure for anyone who isn't wealth: the prosecutors have massively more resources than the average person to call upon. Alternatively, when prosecuting the wealthy, that asymmetry is reversed, which might be equally problematic.

[ashtonbaker]

I've occasionally mused that funding for a legal case should go into a pool, which is divided equally between both sides. That way, any money thrown at a case is, at least in theory, aligned with the incentive of "getting at the truth" rather than overwhelming someone with a valid case, but lesser resources. I don't mind someone raising the profile of a case by adding funding, especially if the stakes are high for one party, but it shouldn't be at the detriment of justice.

It's kind of a half-baked idea, and I'm sure it's not totally watertight but the existing problems you've mentioned really bother me.

[lotsofpulp]

I have the same line of reasoning when people talk about having enough to feel secure. Even simple civil legal matters cost in the tens of thousands of dollars easy.

And the system works so that you’re either rich enough to be able to defend yourself and the money spent doesn’t affect you, you’re poor enough that you have nothing to lose, or you’re in the middle, busy trying to get from poor to rich, but you are vulnerable to losing it all because you don’t have enough to protect it, but you have enough that it’s worth for someone else to try and take it.

[cyberlurker]

Yes, that middle zone (that most of us probably live in) is terrifying. And it’s why we get conned into so many different types of insurance.

“One disaster and all that progress is gone.”

[hutzlibu]

"Yes, that middle zone (that most of us probably live in) is terrifying"

More terrifying than the bottom where you got nothing to loose? I doubt it. Otherwise, why be afraid of it?

[vmception]

I would say just because of the energy and sacrifices used

At the bottom you don't have to pretend that the circumstances will improve, and there is some freedom associated with some approaches to that. Careers don't need to have continuity, I know many people in hospitality and service industry whose vacation policy is saving and quitting one restuarant, travelling, and getting another job at a different restuarant when they get back. Sure other approaches have lots of energy used on finding food and shelter that day, and service and hospitality work is not necessarily at the bottom, my post isn't about those approaches and dilemmas.

People in the distinct category of "professional" careers, not my term, don't feel like they have that freedom to have any timegaps and are resigned to earning small periods of time off, and often times that is true.

[hutzlibu]

"At the bottom you don't have to pretend that the circumstances will improve"

Well, sorry, but I would also say, you don't know what you are talking about.

First of all, there is no bottom at the bottom - you can always fall deeper, until there is no more escape than suicide. I know people who did.

What you maybe mean, are people who don't care abobut materialism and live with little to no money by their choice. I lived with those people for quite some time and it was fun.

When you are young and healthy and on your own, you don't really have to worry about a lot of things. I worried about my backpack with my laptop and that was it. I slept in a tent or under the stars or wherever. When the money was gone, there were always places or ways to get food. Work a little, travel a little. Easygoing.

But now I have a family. Now I cannot not have money.

[michaelmrose]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Have you ever not been able to afford medication that you know you needed to breath and gone to sleep to have a nightmare about being attacked and suffocated and woke up to find it was real save for the fact that it was your own body?

Ever wondered if you could afford to keep a pet from dying due to being able to afford the care?

Ever wondered if losing your home was going to stress your marriage so much that it might splinter?

The only people who think the bottom is less stressful have never been there.

[cyberlurker]

To be clear, I don’t think the bottom is any less terrifying. It’s just the anxiety of being poor and powerless is now replaced by reality.

[roywiggins]

Appeals? Only ~3% of people charged even go to trial, the rest plead out.

Just giving everyone a substantive right to trial would amount to a revolution.

[Gustomaximus]

I've wondered what would happen if jail culture expected people to go to trial.

So similar to how snitches are targeted, if criminals in jail start violently targeting people that didn't go to trial they might be able to tear down the system...maybe?

And to be clear this is a loose idea as I don't really know the system but it seems courts would be so flooded if everyone took this route. Prosecuters would have to stop with these rediculous threats of trial jail time vs plea deal as jails would become too full. And authorities would be forced to stop charging people for smaller crimes as they simply couldn't handle the case load in courts.

Even getting juries might be tough and start the rest of society pushing back if people were regularly being called for jury duty and disrupting their own lives.

...or something else but this would be an interesting 'fight back' by criminals.

[edbob]

George Bush introduced a PREA/Safe Prisons Program that has radically changed prison culture. Prisons are far, far safer than ever before and getting even safer as time goes on. (Since I know about Texas in particular), Texas has spent millions per prison to install hundreds of HD cameras covering nearly every square inch of ground (outside of individual cells and showers). When someone commits serious violence, they are segregated for at least 5-10 years, depending on the severity.

There are still some gang-controlled areas, but they are an exception now rather than the rule. The nanny state is firmly in control of most of the prisons.

[vmception]

Yeah. But just giving myself that right first, forever.

[criddell]

In Canada you can't even get the breathalyzer maintenance records:

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/maintenance-r...

[undersuit]

Guess you should just start doing these crucial DNA tests against some sort of panel of tests instead of just one lab. It would be a shame for the quality of the code in your one test to convict an innocent or free the guilty.