5 ms·

> One other modest mitigating factor should be mentioned. For many everyday crimes, like robbery, the presence of surveillance cameras in stores and buildings h

• mc32 8y ago
  Eye witness evidence can be very deceptive but it can be very accurate as well. Many a time witnesses have provided key information to investigators. But, I agree, it cannot (should not) be used as primary evidence in criminal cases. Hippocampus or not, it’s not consistently reliable.
• michaelt 8y ago
  Maybe this should be the standard for the legal system too: allow eye witness testimony to guide police investigation but not be used as courtroom evidence. I used to think this, until I had to sit on a jury. I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times when he answered the door. Hospital records and photos meant no-one disputed the victim had been punched. But what evidence was there that the accused was the attacker? Only the eyewitness testimony of the accused and his wife. I struggle to see how such a case could be prosecuted without eyewitness testimony? Unless perhaps people put CCTV cameras all around in their own homes, and to me that doesn't sound like an improvement in civil liberties. (After we found the guy guilty, the judge revealed the accused was awaiting trial for two other very similar offences with different victims)
  • marcinzm 8y ago
    >I struggle to see how such a case could be prosecuted without eyewitness testimony? Maybe it shouldn't be then. Just because a crime happened doesn't mean someone has to be punished for it irrespective of their actual guilt.
    • Verdex 8y ago
      Do you want the punisher (tm)? This is how we get the punisher(tm).
    • NotAnEconomist 8y ago
      > Just because a crime happened doesn't mean someone has to be punished for it irrespective of their actual guilt. The failure to prosecute the case of someone attacking someone else in their home merely creates an incentive for people to enact more violence in response, because the system fails to ensure baseline safety and won't be able to hold them accountable for their revenge. Punishment for violence against others is required to have a peaceable society. You can argue what you are, but you're advocating for a world of anarchy and uncontested violence.
      • soraminazuki 8y ago
        I can hardly see why respecting due process leads to anarchism or violence.
      • dahfizz 8y ago
        In your scenario, why wouldn't people take revenge on each other by making false accusations and getting their enemies thrown in jail? It's not like putting people in prison is a peaceful thing. It's a very violent ordeal, it's just violence that the state perpetrates on your behalf. We have to be sure that it's worth while.
        • NotAnEconomist 8y ago
          > I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times when he answered the door. Hospital records and photos meant no-one disputed the victim had been punched. But what evidence was there that the accused was the attacker? Only the eyewitness testimony of the accused and his wife. Because we're not talking about an abstract situation of sans evidence accusations, and because that's already a problem -- even without eyewitness testimony being admissible. We're talking about the different rates of bad things we can have in real compromises we can enact for real situations: if you go so far towards never convicting the innocent that you never convict violent home invasions, society will break down. You can think that's justice, I was just connecting the choice with the outcome.
• Wistar 8y ago
  "Plane crash investigators mostly ignore eye witness testimony using it only at best to guide the investigation" I once read that it is common for aircraft accident eyewitnesses to erroneously claim the airplane was on fire before it struck the ground.
• FatalLogic 8y ago
  >Also, this article doesn’t mention the cross or other race effect[2] which is yet another compounding factor. The other race effect was explained in the fifth paragraph of the article. It's mentioned repeatedly. As you see, we really cannot trust the testimony of our own eyes. We've known this for over a century. But we still do it. Rashomon would have been shorter and simpler if they'd had surveillance cameras, though not an excellent movie anymore.