71–80 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
I don’t know the numbers, but DNA exonerations give a bit of a natural experiment (where testable evidence was preserved).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
When DNA matching was introduced, we discovered that at minimum 10% of people on death row were innocent. Death row cases are among the most litigated and examined cases. So, 10% is a reasonable floor, and we're already in double digits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
Shouldn't it be the exact opposite here ? The burden of proof is the other way around. The big claim is here: the state has grandiose claims that the overwhelming majority is fair, but there is no proof of it. Therefore the state should prove that more than 90% of the cases are legitimate, fair, not coerced, and not motivated by the pressure to interrupt the proceedings. 97% of people choose plea deals or out-of-cour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
Shouldn't it be the exact opposite here ? The burden of proof is the other way around. The big claim is here: the state has grandiose claims that the overwhelming majority is fair, but there is no proof of it. Therefore the state should prove that more than 90% of the cases are legitimate, fair, not coerced, and not motivated by the pressure to interrupt the proceedings. 97% of people choose plea deals or out-of-cour…
It is disingenuous to weasel out of proving one claim by making another, or saying “look over here”
Also, outrageous claims in opposite directions can both be bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This reasonably sets a floor I disagree wrt reasonableness. It’s just too big a leap. There are a lot of crimes, and not many land you on death row.
The observation was that death row represents the highest level of scrutiny, and still had 10% false positives for guilt. Is there any argument that less-scrutinized cases would have a lower level of false convictions?
Regardless of what they did, tampering with evidence is completely unacceptable and should result in their dismissal and conviction but I don’t think the story will transpire to be as attention grabbing. A well meaning idiot could convince themselves that enhancing evidence is somehow justifiable whereas it would be almost impossible for even the most corrupt moron to justify creating evidence out of thin air.
Creating evidence out of thin air would be ridiculous because evidence is available to the defence who would be able to immediately identify if an image or video had been created (as the defendant would be able to recognize what they do or did not do) whereas “enhancing” an image could be easily spotted by other officers. “How come this photo is clearer than the last time I saw it?” “Oh I ran it through ChatGPT to clean it up! Neat, eh? Just like on CSI!”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
When DNA matching was introduced, we discovered that at minimum 10% of people on death row were innocent. Death row cases are among the most litigated and examined cases. So, 10% is a reasonable floor, and we're already in double digits.
How did we do that? I never heard this: certainly 10% of people on death row weren't exonerated by DNA? This is some kind of shaky extrapolation I assume?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
A few years ago, one of my coworkers was arrested for a domestic violence complaint. Looking into his case, I found an extremely specific lurid description of the allegations -- and then I found the same lurid description copy/pasted to every other person recently arrested for the same crime. I'm probably getting the specific terms wrong, but I did click through to see it on a government website, because my first sus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the US? Probably a large double-digit percentage of cases imo…
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
This is done because there's an exception in our constitution for slavery "as punishment for a crime" and well all know that capitalism loves slave labor.
i do wonder, that in the age where we have image and video creation out of the bag, whether or not this will result in whole classes of evidence becoming completely unreliable.
There's a big gap between "theoretically unreliable" and courts actually recognizing that, unfortunately. Lots of forensics is much more dubious than CSI would have you believe.