4 ms·

>They need to find and convict a suspect to instill confidence from the public that they're doing a good job, in order to keep their jobs and their funding. Thi

>They need to find and convict a suspect to instill confidence from the public that they're doing a good job, in order to keep their jobs and their funding. This doesn't mean they need to find the actual criminal, only that they need to appear that they did. There are always instances of bad process and bad outcomes, but in general that's not how the justice system works. I'm sorry for your cynicism.

idrios 6y ago
It's not cynicism, it's Goodhart's law applied to actual law enforcement. There are good police units who have it in their culture of not bringing a suspect to trial unless they have substantial evidence, and presuming innocence until guilt is proven. There are also bad ones who will take a person to court because it fits a description and allows them to close a case. Whichever path they choose, police won't be held accountable for taking shortcuts except in egregious, high profile cases.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >It's not cynicism, it's Goodhart's law applied to actual law enforcement. What OP pointed out was a potential problem that could be rectified. I don't get a sense of the scale of this problem and I don't see any evidence that what OP specified is an intrinsically large-scale structural problem that leads to innocent people being incarcerated in significant numbers. >There are also bad ones who will take a person to court because it fits a description and allows them to close a case. America is a big country of 320 million, with 700,000 police officers, and thousands of people moving through the justice system every single day. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the process breaking down. That says nothing about whether or not this is a systemic, structural problem. And even if it was, it could be adjusted by policy and regulatory changes. >Whichever path they choose, police won't be held accountable for taking shortcuts except in egregious, high profile cases. This kind of argumentation is so annoying. You're clearly talking out of ignorance based on your own interpretation of how policing is done (which stems from movies and twitter). What do you mean police is not held accountable? Police departments are highly regulated. Every single aspect of policing has a process and regulation attached to it, and is coupled with enforcement and oversight from independent bodies.
  - idrios 6y ago
    > You're clearly talking out of ignorance based on your own interpretation of how policing is done I am someone who knows someone who was convicted over purely circumstantial evidence, and I am only making the claim that we've built a system that leads to wrongful convictions in the face of incomplete evidence. The sibling comment gave 60 cases that would back this claim up, and you responded with "well that's just going to happen by law of large numbers." It's very easy to say it just happens when it hasn't happened to you. Don't be an ass.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Not everyone has the privilege of being ignorant without personal risk. https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
- macspoofing 6y ago
  The justice system is run by humans, it will make mistakes ... so I'm not sure what you're proving by pointing out the tragic stories of individuals who were failed by the system. You will never design a system to 100% prevent innocent people from being punished, or guilty from being acquitted. The big picture is this: America is a huge country of 320 million with thousands of people per day moving through the justice system. The vast majority are sentenced/acquitted based on the crimes they did or did not (respectively) commit.

idrios 6y ago

It's not cynicism, it's Goodhart's law applied to actual law enforcement. There are good police units who have it in their culture of not bringing a suspect to trial unless they have substantial evidence, and presuming innocence until guilt is proven. There are also bad ones who will take a person to court because it fits a description and allows them to close a case. Whichever path they choose, police won't be held accountable for taking shortcuts except in egregious, high profile cases.

macspoofing 6y ago
>It's not cynicism, it's Goodhart's law applied to actual law enforcement. What OP pointed out was a potential problem that could be rectified. I don't get a sense of the scale of this problem and I don't see any evidence that what OP specified is an intrinsically large-scale structural problem that leads to innocent people being incarcerated in significant numbers. >There are also bad ones who will take a person to court because it fits a description and allows them to close a case. America is a big country of 320 million, with 700,000 police officers, and thousands of people moving through the justice system every single day. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the process breaking down. That says nothing about whether or not this is a systemic, structural problem. And even if it was, it could be adjusted by policy and regulatory changes. >Whichever path they choose, police won't be held accountable for taking shortcuts except in egregious, high profile cases. This kind of argumentation is so annoying. You're clearly talking out of ignorance based on your own interpretation of how policing is done (which stems from movies and twitter). What do you mean police is not held accountable? Police departments are highly regulated. Every single aspect of policing has a process and regulation attached to it, and is coupled with enforcement and oversight from independent bodies.
- idrios 6y ago
  > You're clearly talking out of ignorance based on your own interpretation of how policing is done I am someone who knows someone who was convicted over purely circumstantial evidence, and I am only making the claim that we've built a system that leads to wrongful convictions in the face of incomplete evidence. The sibling comment gave 60 cases that would back this claim up, and you responded with "well that's just going to happen by law of large numbers." It's very easy to say it just happens when it hasn't happened to you. Don't be an ass.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

Not everyone has the privilege of being ignorant without personal risk. https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/

macspoofing 6y ago
The justice system is run by humans, it will make mistakes ... so I'm not sure what you're proving by pointing out the tragic stories of individuals who were failed by the system. You will never design a system to 100% prevent innocent people from being punished, or guilty from being acquitted. The big picture is this: America is a huge country of 320 million with thousands of people per day moving through the justice system. The vast majority are sentenced/acquitted based on the crimes they did or did not (respectively) commit.