4 ms·

People are routinely convicted of murder (or other substantial crimes) without hard evidence? Because I was referring to high crimes, not petty thefts or speed

• tptacek 19y ago
  What is "hard" evidence? This is a term you've invented. "100% positive"? When are we ever 100% positive? "Smart man's life"? You really think we should have different standards for programmers? People are routinely convicted of murder on indirect evidence. Evidence is evidence. It's up to the jury to decide how compelling the evidence is. I'm surprised they came back with murder 1, but would have been shocked if they had acquitted: there was a lot of circumstancial evidence.
  • palish 19y ago
    What is "hard" evidence? Evidence is hard if we are 100% positive about its accuracy. When are we ever 100% positive? When our decision is based on current technology that we've used to rigorously prove something. "Smart man's life"? You really think we should have different standards for programmers? Those are your words, not mine. It would be silly to have different standards based on an artificial rating of a person. But we should have different standards that reflect the possibility that we're wrong. For example, by limiting prison terms to an absolute maximum of ten years unless we are 100% positive (as defined above) that the person is guilty.
    • tptacek 19y ago
      So, in the palish system of justice, if you can conceal a body, you face an absolute maximum of ten years in prison.
      • SwellJoe 19y ago
        And in other news Tony Soprano today made a large contribution to the Palish for Governor campaign.
      • palish 19y ago
        Currently, yes. That (indirect) question is difficult for me, and the answer might change in the future as I become more experienced. (I'm only 20, so what do I know anyway?) There are proportionally few people who are murderously inclined. It's worth risking them if it means that no innocents are convicted. Perfect murders are unlikely, and they become more unlikely as forensic technology improves. It's best for a prison sentence to be based on a proof, but if we can't be positive about a person's guilt then we should favor the possibility of innocence.
    • mechanical_fish 19y ago
      limiting prison terms to an absolute maximum of ten years... At the risk of repeating myself: Yes, you'd be right to complain if Reiser were being sentenced to death, but he isn't. And it would be sad if Reiser spent 25 or 30 years in prison even though he was innocent... but that might not happen, because at any moment Nina could turn up, dead or alive, and exonerate him. [EDIT: removed bogus argument I made based on misreading the original article. I promise to get more sleep before my next post. :]
• ssharp 19y ago
  Why does it matter if the guy is "smart" or not? The justice system doesn't play favorites for people with high IQs - especially when they're accused of murder.
  • mmmurf 19y ago
    it doesn't? The average prisoner has an IQ that is one standard deviation below the mean. People whose IQ is one or two standard deviations above the mean rarely go to prison.
    • tptacek 19y ago
      People with high IQs can afford top-notch legal counsel.
      • menloparkbum 19y ago
        Not necessarily. People with lots of money can afford top-notch legal counsel.
        • ssharp 19y ago
          Too much IQ and not enough common sense. When a lawyer tells you not to take the stand, don't take the stand.
    • ssharp 19y ago
      You know who else had high IQs? Ted Bundy, The Unabomber and Charles Manson.