4 ms·
You're talking theory, not actual practice. The problem with the system is that every layer assumes it's the job of some other layer to determine if the person
by danssig 16y ago
You're talking theory, not actual practice. The problem with the system is that every layer assumes it's the job of some other layer to determine if the person is actually guilty or not.
e.g. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/07/reporter’s-notebook-reflections-on-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/07/reporter’s-notebook-re...
- ErrantX 16y agoMost of the layers do their own form of "due diligence" though; the problem is that too often that is based on gut instinct rather than facts. Don't get me wrong; instinct is a crucial part of it. But when there are zero facts to support that instinct it becomes a problem :)
- isleyaardvark 16y agoAbsolutely. My point was it has less to do with the numbers game than the nature of the cops' jobs. I'm shocked at the jury in this particular case. Both the bit about the beard and the alibi didn't create a reasonable doubt? Many are quick to blame the prosecutors, but those 12 jurors should be ashamed of themselves. There's no indication that the prosecutors in this case lied or concealed exculpatory evidence, or that the defense attorney was asleep during the trial.
- danssig 16y agoHave you ever served on a jury? I have. It's 12 people who would rather be somewhere else and will follow what ever the dominate voice says.