3 ms·
You could also have an evil twin brother that you don't know of that might have committed the crime, thus let's throw out photographic evidence. Somebody might
by 21 9y ago
You could also have an evil twin brother that you don't know of that might have committed the crime, thus let's throw out photographic evidence.
Somebody might also put on a fake license plate number matching your own on an car with the exact model as your own. Thus let's throw out witness accounts of car type/plate number.
- _jal 9y agoUS Criminal law has a long long history of reliance on scientifically invalid forensic evidence. Bite marks, fingerprinting, fiber analysis, breathalyzers, hypnosis and others have all been legally ruled to be beyond reproach at various times/places, and all of them are on a continuum of scientific reliability ranging from laughable through potentially useful for some purposes if properly performed and evaluated.(Hypnotizing witnesses is still legally valid in Texas and some other places.) If "beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to mean something, then it should mean something. And by the way, eyewitness testimony is frequently really unreliable.
- robterrell 9y agoI don't think this is fair. The criticism of fingerprints, as I understand it, is (a) there's actually no way to prove that "no two people have the same fingerprints," and (b) the current system of fingerprint classification (using a few points) could allow different fingerprints to be classified as identical.
- KirinDave 9y agoSure, but folks using this argument don't quite use "evidence" in the same sense that courts do. Evidence is not "irrefutably correct", it is "a series of datapoints that judge (and possibly jury) need to evaluate as part of the decision." What's important is to lay out accurate odds for these systems, to which the fingerprinting folks don't always do. But a 5 point match on a fingerprint IS information even if it's not wholly conclusive.
- cecilpl2 9y agoYou are correct in a Bayesian sense, but until everyone is trained to be a Bayesian reasoner in primary school, we need to build the system in a way that ensures evidence is considered properly.
- adrianmonk 9y agoSo what's the solution? Throw out all evidence that isn't incontrovertible?
- KirinDave 9y agoThere is much ink spilled about how people aren't bayesian educated, but I don't really believe it and therefore don't agree with you. We're actually pretty good at identifying uncertainty and certainty within the physical world. It's only when we get into very large or very small numbers that we start to lose the plot.
- smiddereens 9y agoYou're a huge dork, thus let's ignore your comment.