Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people • Hacker News Board

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#181

Post by incahoots » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 9:36 PM UTC

k2enemy wrote: post #155

pc86 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the common refrain in scenarios like this is that it's your fault. Even ignoring the weed, which I think a lot of people would have sympathy for, you owed child support that wasn't paid and had a [bench, presumably] warrant out for your arrest. The simple fact of the matter is that most people don't owe court-mandated child support at any point in their lives, most people that do owe it pay it, and mos…

I think you misread the parent. They didn't have an outstanding warrant, the driver did.

You're correct, the friend had the warranty out for child support, I was in good standing paid up.

The fear was being jailed too long to respond to potential employers so that I could continue to work. Child support agencies are immediately notified if you've been let go and will hound you on a daily basis to find employment, there are no breaks.

Thankfully I'm in a much better position in life, but I know what it's like if you don't have access to capital to hire a good defense attorney who isn't behind the 8-ball like public defenders always find themselves.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#182

Post by treebeard901 » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 9:41 PM UTC

qingcharles wrote: post #134

oooyay wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Have you heard of Amazon? Order it online." That's textbook entrapment given that collecting an Amazon order, much less the occasionally misplaced one, would require stepping outside of your apartment.

Yes. I once stepped onto my front step to let my dog out and the police saw me and went bat-shit crazy about it. They told me I needed to hire someone to come to my house each day and open my front door to let my dog out.

People in general do not seem to understand that the Govt more and more is not sending people to prison. They are bringing the prison to everyone instead.

That ankle bracelet works the same way as the smartphones as far as location data. We all have ankle bracelets.

Our cities are concrete surveillance prisons...

It goes on and on and is another failure of the Justice system.

I am dealing with a corrupt Judge as well so I know frustrating it can be.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#183

Post by incahoots » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 9:43 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #137

incahoots wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gone through the system in a similar fashion, but with no where near the same outcome as you did. If I hadn't gone through a similar situation I would almost believe that you were making it up, that's how ridiculous this is. For context I got stopped in a car with a friend who had weed (unknown to me at the time), had a really old warrant for something like a missed child support payment (also didn't know), and…

Unfortunately, the common refrain in scenarios like this is that it's your fault. Even ignoring the weed, which I think a lot of people would have sympathy for, you owed child support that wasn't paid and had a [bench, presumably] warrant out for your arrest. The simple fact of the matter is that most people don't owe court-mandated child support at any point in their lives, most people that do owe it pay it, and mos…

Just for clarification I wasn't the one with the warrant, nor behind in child support. Entirely my friend's position, not mine.

I think it's important to point out that our justice system is so overburdened with cases they have to take deals, and that's just for the side of the system where folks don't have access to capital to hire good attorneys, they get stuck with the even more overburdened public defenders, who don't eve have time to review any of the details of the charge.

Then there's the other side that is well off and can fight their charge with a great attorney, or a team of lawyers, at which point the county/state decides it's not worth the hassle to tie up their DA on this particular case and they provide the defense with an agreeable plea (usually a slap on the wrist to get it wrapped up quick), then proceed with the next one.

As as most faculties in our society, the issue is and always has been an issue of resources. The problem is everything is paywalled to near obscurity, and we kick the can further down the road.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#184

Post by Buttons840 » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 9:47 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #154

Buttons840 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit against the company. They are stating false things about their product and causing people harm. An official and highly paid representative sent to testify in court couldn't just be dismissed as "well, one salesman misspoke, not our fault". This would be the just recourse, but I'm aware that probably nobody can afford this justice.

The problem is not the company per se but the fact that the government is allowed to get away with having an "expert witness" testify in court with no supporting evidence about something like this. The government should be required to produce, and keep up to date, positive evidence about the accuracy of such systems, collected independently of the manufacturer.

Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims?

There's also the issue of jury selection. If a potential juror seems like they might question faulty statistics, for example, and the prosecutors know they will be presenting some statistics, that juror wont be selected.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#185

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 9:49 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #163

pdonis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about non-violent drug possession? AFAIK that all by itself accounts for a significant number of incarcerated people. Laws criminalizing that are a product of the war on drugs, not embodying something in statute that's been a common law crime throughout human history.

My understanding that this is largely a thing of the past. Simple possession doesn't result in time, although dealing can

Non-violent dealing (meaning possession for the purpose of sale instead of use) would still be non-violent possession.

It is a valid question what fraction of dealing (as opposed to possession for personal use) is actually non-violent. But even the violence is largely a product of the war on drugs, just as the corresponding violence surrounding illegal alcohol dealing during Prohibition was a product of the war on alcohol. Take away the prohibition and the violence went away.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#186

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #184

pdonis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not the company per se but the fact that the government is allowed to get away with having an "expert witness" testify in court with no supporting evidence about something like this. The government should be required to produce, and keep up to date, positive evidence about the accuracy of such systems, collected independently of the manufacturer.

Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims? There's also the issue of jury selection. If a potential juror seems like they might question faulty statistics, for example, and the prosecutors know they will be presenting some statistics, that juror wont be selected.

> Can the defense have an "expert witness" refute the claims?

Yes, but the defense witness can make unsupported claims in the opposite direction. Neither "expert witness" is required to actually support their testimony.

> There's also the issue of jury selection.

Yes, definitely. Someone else upthread mentioned that too.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#187

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

bedobi wrote: post #157

cpill wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mimics my impression of Sweden in general. It's not a nice place of you are not Swedish.

in this case it's the opposite - the policy allowed asylum seekers to claim and benefit from being considered to be 18 or younger when they were in fact obviously 30+ but yeah your impression is not wrong, Sweden is not a nice place lol

[deleted]

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#188

Post by graphe » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 10:22 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #177

graphe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full of is misleading. If 1%-10% are innocent, 99-90% are still guilty. 21 of the 375 men that were innocent were on death row. https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-... Are these cases a relic before dna evidence?

That's just for this one project. I'm not saying everyone is innocent, but the number of people who were wrongly convicted by a lazy system that let shoddy police work and lax standards become the norm is shocking. There's the old thought process that even if the guy wasn't guilty of this crime he's certainly guilty of others so they would be doing the world a favor by putting him away. In the end this is just self-j…

>There's the old thought process that even if the guy wasn't guilty of this crime he's certainly guilty of others so they would be doing the world a favor by putting him away. In the end this is just self-justified racism.

I’m sorry, where is race the factor in this? You could make a weak claim for sexism from your post but there is no racism.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#189

Post by graphe » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 10:25 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #185

s1artibartfast wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding that this is largely a thing of the past. Simple possession doesn't result in time, although dealing can

Non-violent dealing (meaning possession for the purpose of sale instead of use) would still be non-violent possession. It is a valid question what fraction of dealing (as opposed to possession for personal use) is actually non-violent. But even the violence is largely a product of the war on drugs, just as the corresponding violence surrounding illegal alcohol dealing during Prohibition was a product of the war on al…

How many of those are without a weapon?

Is intent to distribute fentanyl a non violent possession? If so could you ever make a case it’s non violent dealing? If you don’t see it as non violent dealing, a store advertising date rape drugs should be allowed to sell all their legal products.

Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people

#190

Post by qingcharles » Mon, Dec 11, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #163

pdonis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about non-violent drug possession? AFAIK that all by itself accounts for a significant number of incarcerated people. Laws criminalizing that are a product of the war on drugs, not embodying something in statute that's been a common law crime throughout human history.

My understanding that this is largely a thing of the past. Simple possession doesn't result in time, although dealing can

It's often used as an aggravating factor in another crime. If you're caught with a gun and some drugs then it usually makes the gun crime radically more severe.