4 ms·

I would like to see a similar tactic used in court to try to get out of a conviction. Who is really to say what happened on the night in question? Who is to sa

I would like to see a similar tactic used in court to try to get out of a conviction. Who is really to say what happened on the night in question? Who is to say the witnesses and police saw what they saw? What is the nature of reality and how can one really know anything? In light of this the defendant must be acquitted of all charges because all information is equal and perception is everything therefore my drunken rampage at the liquor store only happened in the minds of all of the supposed witnesses while I was at home reading a good book my own perception.

cookiecaper 9y ago
This is exactly what already happens in court. Both sides are given room to make their arguments, even if the argument is "We can't really like, know anything, on a metaphysical level, can we?" If a jury finds this convincing, you win. The judge and lawyers will actively work to discourage such a waste of time, but if you're accused of a criminal offense and you insist on presenting this argument in court, it is your right to do so. In the U.S., we govern by the will of the people. The jury box is important check on runaway government power (which is, unfortunately, frequently diluted).
Swizec 9y ago
There's active research into fake memories. Currently the assumption is that witness testimonials are somewhere between completely useless and actively harmful to justice. https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.h... > Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. So ... yeah. Our memory is pretty useless as far as determining facts goes.
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  Again, what is the alternative, total chaos? Every system we have is best effort, all you can do is continue to try to improve your means of gathering information and making decisions. As far as fake news goes, most of these real events are much more verifiable than someones memory in court. In many cases there is footage, many witnesses (whose testimony can be compared to one another), documents etc.
  - Swizec 9y ago
    Keeping detailed records helps a lot in case of witnesses I think. Trials that don't last several years would be great too. Maybe avoid questioning people more than once? I don't have a solution or even that much knowledge of how it's already done. I'd say it's easy to point at cases where it obviously works well and where just witnesses without physical evidence are highly problematic. It's the cases in between that are hard. Even Sherlock Holmes always gets a confession in the end. Without a confession the case isn't over. Ever noticed that?

cookiecaper 9y ago

This is exactly what already happens in court. Both sides are given room to make their arguments, even if the argument is "We can't really like, know anything, on a metaphysical level, can we?" If a jury finds this convincing, you win. The judge and lawyers will actively work to discourage such a waste of time, but if you're accused of a criminal offense and you insist on presenting this argument in court, it is your right to do so. In the U.S., we govern by the will of the people. The jury box is important check on runaway government power (which is, unfortunately, frequently diluted).

Swizec 9y ago

There's active research into fake memories. Currently the assumption is that witness testimonials are somewhere between completely useless and actively harmful to justice. https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.h... > Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. So ... yeah. Our memory is pretty useless as far as determining facts goes.

okreallywtf 9y ago
Again, what is the alternative, total chaos? Every system we have is best effort, all you can do is continue to try to improve your means of gathering information and making decisions. As far as fake news goes, most of these real events are much more verifiable than someones memory in court. In many cases there is footage, many witnesses (whose testimony can be compared to one another), documents etc.
- Swizec 9y ago
  Keeping detailed records helps a lot in case of witnesses I think. Trials that don't last several years would be great too. Maybe avoid questioning people more than once? I don't have a solution or even that much knowledge of how it's already done. I'd say it's easy to point at cases where it obviously works well and where just witnesses without physical evidence are highly problematic. It's the cases in between that are hard. Even Sherlock Holmes always gets a confession in the end. Without a confession the case isn't over. Ever noticed that?