5 ms·

Why is it up to his lawyer to prove he wasn't at the scene of the crime? Surely it should be up to the other side to prove he was? Innocent until proven guilty

Why is it up to his lawyer to prove he wasn't at the scene of the crime? Surely it should be up to the other side to prove he was? Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

jacquesm 9y ago
Because it never was about justice in the first place. Think of it as keeping score and looking tough.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  I think the prosecution should face criminal charges for things like these. Minimum sentencing of life in prison if found guilty!
Jeremy1026 9y ago
The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Turns out the eye witness was either outright lying or made a grave mistake.
- naasking 9y ago
  > The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Eyewitness testimony is known to be seriously flawed. I'm not sure that's enough.
  - pixl97 9y ago
    >I'm not sure that's enough. No. It is absolutely enough in our current legal interpretations. "I saw naasking communing with Satan, I swear it" is enough to get you put in prison or to a death sentence in the US. We like to think we are beyond the days of witch trials, but a few weeks in a courtroom would change your mind. Trying to change that legal interpretation is going to be very difficult. Many crimes have very little physical evidence, even the interpretations of physical evidence we have are horribly bad because of biased expert witnesses and broken crime labs. Moreso, any push for better physical evidence will get more pushback from voters that are "Tough on crime", which is a very strong voting block in the US.
- matwood 9y ago
  We need to leave behind eye witness testimony. It has been shown time and again to be misleading and often completely false. The worst part is that the eye witness is usually not lying on purpose, but genuinely trying to help. Think about everything you did yesterday, now put near exact times on it. It's very hard to do, and if someone pushed or suggested you in either direction 1 hour here or there you would likely go along with it. Now go out to last week or last month. Unless something extraordinary happened on the day in question most people do not have the ability to remember the time or even day. It's just not how memory works. EDIT And don't even get me started on jailhouse 'witnesses'. The prosecutor says if current criminal can get person arrested and sitting in jail to talk, current criminal gets a reduced sentence. I'm sure that's completely reliable testimony /s, yet it is pushed and used all the time. I am of the very strong opinion that it is better to let 10 criminals go rather than putting 1 innocent person in jail. IMO, putting innocent people in jail damages society much more than letting criminals with little evidence of the crime walk.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    When something extraordinary happens, people tend to have vivid memories that are false or even impossible. What were you doing when the Challenger exploded?
    - matwood 9y ago
      Exactly. Even when something extraordinary events occur people are bad at remembering. Eye witness testimony should be barely passable as evidence, yet it is given huge weight in a courtroom.
      - speedplane 9y ago
        A single eyewitness is rarely sufficient to convict, you would at least need some circumstantial evidence as well (e.g., a weapon, a motive, that defendant was in the area, etc.)
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      I was reading that part in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman where he's participating in a panel investigating the Challenger explosion, and sticks the model o-rings in the ice water. Quite impossible, obviously. But I can't remember a single detail of what I was really doing. Probably ignoring the television with my nose in some fantasy novel, based purely on statistics. Kimmel's late night television show does "lie-witness news", which effectively demonstrates that ordinary people will say pretty much anything if you prompt and cue them towards what you want to hear.
pc86 9y ago
That doesn't mean "innocent until proven with 100% certainty that they absolutely committed the crime." It means innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
madaxe_again 9y ago
That's a quaint notion. Between the criminal justice system (that can be read two ways), mass surveillance, warrantless searches etc., it's pretty clear we're all guilty until proven very guilty. "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." ~ Solzhenitsyn.

Why is it up to his lawyer to prove he wasn't at the scene of the crime? Surely it should be up to the other side to prove he was? Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

jacquesm 9y ago

Because it never was about justice in the first place. Think of it as keeping score and looking tough.

thanksgiving 9y ago
I think the prosecution should face criminal charges for things like these. Minimum sentencing of life in prison if found guilty!

Jeremy1026 9y ago

The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Turns out the eye witness was either outright lying or made a grave mistake.

naasking 9y ago
> The prosecutor had an eye witness that placed him at the scene. So the state did their part to prove guilt. Eyewitness testimony is known to be seriously flawed. I'm not sure that's enough.
- pixl97 9y ago
  >I'm not sure that's enough. No. It is absolutely enough in our current legal interpretations. "I saw naasking communing with Satan, I swear it" is enough to get you put in prison or to a death sentence in the US. We like to think we are beyond the days of witch trials, but a few weeks in a courtroom would change your mind. Trying to change that legal interpretation is going to be very difficult. Many crimes have very little physical evidence, even the interpretations of physical evidence we have are horribly bad because of biased expert witnesses and broken crime labs. Moreso, any push for better physical evidence will get more pushback from voters that are "Tough on crime", which is a very strong voting block in the US.
matwood 9y ago
We need to leave behind eye witness testimony. It has been shown time and again to be misleading and often completely false. The worst part is that the eye witness is usually not lying on purpose, but genuinely trying to help. Think about everything you did yesterday, now put near exact times on it. It's very hard to do, and if someone pushed or suggested you in either direction 1 hour here or there you would likely go along with it. Now go out to last week or last month. Unless something extraordinary happened on the day in question most people do not have the ability to remember the time or even day. It's just not how memory works. EDIT And don't even get me started on jailhouse 'witnesses'. The prosecutor says if current criminal can get person arrested and sitting in jail to talk, current criminal gets a reduced sentence. I'm sure that's completely reliable testimony /s, yet it is pushed and used all the time. I am of the very strong opinion that it is better to let 10 criminals go rather than putting 1 innocent person in jail. IMO, putting innocent people in jail damages society much more than letting criminals with little evidence of the crime walk.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  When something extraordinary happens, people tend to have vivid memories that are false or even impossible. What were you doing when the Challenger exploded?
  - matwood 9y ago
    Exactly. Even when something extraordinary events occur people are bad at remembering. Eye witness testimony should be barely passable as evidence, yet it is given huge weight in a courtroom.
    - speedplane 9y ago
      A single eyewitness is rarely sufficient to convict, you would at least need some circumstantial evidence as well (e.g., a weapon, a motive, that defendant was in the area, etc.)
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    I was reading that part in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman where he's participating in a panel investigating the Challenger explosion, and sticks the model o-rings in the ice water. Quite impossible, obviously. But I can't remember a single detail of what I was really doing. Probably ignoring the television with my nose in some fantasy novel, based purely on statistics. Kimmel's late night television show does "lie-witness news", which effectively demonstrates that ordinary people will say pretty much anything if you prompt and cue them towards what you want to hear.

pc86 9y ago

That doesn't mean "innocent until proven with 100% certainty that they absolutely committed the crime." It means innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

madaxe_again 9y ago

That's a quaint notion. Between the criminal justice system (that can be read two ways), mass surveillance, warrantless searches etc., it's pretty clear we're all guilty until proven very guilty. "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." ~ Solzhenitsyn.