this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
521 points (99.6% liked)
fedia shitpost
0 readers
32 users here now
fedia shitpost
Rules
tbd
founded 3 months ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
.. wikipedia how trials were done in the 1800s? This is, and I can't stress this enough, common sense.
Man, sorry, this just sounds like you doubling down on not knowing what you're talking about (For example, in what world has trial law ever been common sense?)
By the haploid genes of christ themself, you cannot say that witness testimony is unreliable while claiming that modern DNA evidence has somehow improved things. It screams that you've bought in to the borderline propaganda of modern media, that forensic evidence is in any way reliable. The internet is rife with reporting about how unreliable it is, in fact.
Seriously, unless someone confessed or was caught in the act, they were innocent when convicted? Statiscially most people convicted were innocent? Where in the hell are you getting this? Please, enlighten me, since my digging in wikipedia has failed to find a source to support your position (though the number of articles on trial law in the 1800s is... small, to say the least)
Look, I'm not arguing about the violence of the state or that trial procedure has been (and is) awfully biased, but specifically trial procedure is nothing like (and has never been) as bad as you imply it is/was.
🤔 to my understanding DNA evidence is one of the very few things that is actually reliable when it comes to forensic science. What issues do you have with it?
Unfortunately your understanding, and that of nearly every juror in the US, is wrong. Tainted by the pro-police television narrative, that cops never mess up and that all crimes can be solved with the application of Forensic Science™. The link I provided elaborates further, but one reason from the concerningly long list: DNA testing really is little more than circumstantial evidence - it's ridiculously easy for your DNA to show up at the scene of a crime you were not involved with. In general, it's more precise than blood splatter or ballistic analyses, but not nearly by the margin you think.
Yeah okay. Witness testimony is less accurate than chance. Before other forms of evidence, the main evidence used was witness testimony. Therefore, logically, less than half of people convicted were guilty of the crime charged in jury trials.
Ah, I think youve misunderstood some numbers. The best stats I have found indicate that ~75% of overturned cases used eyewitness testimony, and 1/3 of those (so ~20% of all) were found to use faulty testimony from two or more eyewitnesses.
Those are a tiny slice of cases, I'm not sure how many total convictions there have been but best numbers on the time period in question is tens of thousands. The court system either modern or historic has some serious fucking problems, an inability to correct its mistakes being one of the more prominent ones. But a 50+% false conviction rate has never been one of them, come on.
It's nearly impossible to overturn a case, I never brought that up or suggested that.where you got confused is that you haven't kept up with any scientific research in the last hundred years relating to human memory, especially under stress
Eyewitness testimony is as reliable as lie detectors, ouiji boards, and Dosing rods for fact finding.
I brought that up because it's the only example I've been able to find (I didn't try all that hard, but still) of how faulty eyewitnesses testimony impacts case outcomes. It's also not almost impossible to get a case overturned, we have an entire court system devoted to hearing appeals. You just fundementally don't know what you're talking about.
A truly miniscule number of cases are based off of a single eyewitnesses' testimony, either historically or in the modern era.
I don't mean this offensively, but are you on the spectrum?
... Wow. Just wow. You're conclusively wrong, and now you're trying to sidestep that wrongness with a truly tone deaf ad hominem?
There's no way to ask that question in this context that isn't offensive. Either you're implying my argument is poorly founded because I am autistic, or you're implying that my argument is somehow invalid because it sounds like it was written by an autistic person. Either way, and I for sure mean this offensively you sad little troll, fuck right off and take your spurious ravings about the court system with you.
No I meant it genuinely, I'm happy to work with whatever the answer is. I'm sorry you found it offensive. I do hope you do some introspection on why you think Neurodivergence is a negative and why you had such a reaction to a fairly common question.
Oh dont even start. Using neurodivergence as a shield is cravenly, and pretending like using it in a textbook ad hominem doesnt add any negative context is an obvious & inept attempt to take the moral high ground now that your argument is falling apart.
That person never had an argument to begin with... they were talking out their ass and then trolled out. And then they jumped to just being a straight-up asshole
Must suck to be them — I can't imagine how miserable you'd have to be, in order to act like such an insufferable cunt
There's also physical and circumstantial evidence, not just eye witness. And I don't think you fully grasp the concept of "logic. "Eye witness" being a highly unreliable source doesn't make "correct convictions" less likely than a coin toss
You're talking out your ass and trolling. Go home, peasant
Do try to keep up with a conversation if you enter it.
K
“Common sense” often just means “intuitive”, “expected”, or “uninformed”. The problem is that reality is very often not so simple so that’s not much of an argument, especially if you have no studies to link to to confirm your hypothesis.
”He looks guilty enough, hang him”
Hell, replace "guilty" with "black" and you've got the current legal system.