fedia shitpost

0 readers

1 users here now

fedia shitpost

Rules

tbd

founded 4 months ago

522

an honor (fedia.io)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (18 children)

.. wikipedia how trials were done in the 1800s? This is, and I can't stress this enough, common sense.

[–] Warl0k3 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (14 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

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.

[–] MrShankles 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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