3 ms·
>I'm confused by why JWZ says that the Mork database code has anything to do with killing people. Here's the progression of thoughts. 1) Messed up database fo
by allwein 15y ago
>I'm confused by why JWZ says that the Mork database code has anything to do with killing people.
Here's the progression of thoughts.
1) Messed up database format is difficult to decipher.
2) Difficulty in deciphering the format, leads a forensic analyst to mistakenly conclude that the site was visited 84 times instead of just once.
3) Assume that Jury reaches conclusion that Casey Anthony killed her daughter using chloroform. Thus the choice is then whether it was simple manslaughter and she gets a few years in prison, or it was premeditated murder, and thus eligible for the death penalty.
4) Since the suspect visited the site 84 times, this helps lead to the jury concluding that the killing was premeditated murder, and thus Casey Anthony should be put to death.
5) Thus, as the result of a bad database format, someone was put to death instead of just serving a few years in jail.
- raganwald 15y agoI agree with your analysis of the argument being presented, however I disagree with the argument itself. 1) Street light burns out but hasn't been replaced yet, making street dim 2) Dim lighting leads bystander to mistakenly conclude that accused was present at scene of crime ... 5) Thus, for the want of a light bulb, someone is put to death. My contention is that it is a failing of the process for the Jury to reach the conclusion based on a forensic analyst's mistake. I'm not an expert on courtroom proceedings, but I certainly hope that if I am ever asked to give expert testimony in court, I will not look the jury in the eye and claim in loud, ringing tones that I am 100% confident of my findings when spelunking through a database format I didn't write that was written by code I haven't examined line by line. If I was foolish enough to make claims like this, I hope someone would cross-examine me properly. I hope that someone, somewhere would suggest that there might be any number of reasons why the word "chloroform" might appear on the hard disk in that spot and give alternate explanations. And so on, and so forth. If people are being sent to Death Row based on what looks to me like incredibly scanty evidence, I don't think the scanty evidence is the problem, I think the process for evaluating evidence is the problem.
- thisuser 15y agoUnfortunately law seems to be one of the most conservative institutions (i.e. slow to change) in existence. It it set up to be an adversarial system between two parties, and most of the institutional structure depends upon that. Between the desire for an adversarial system and constitutional right to trial by jury, I'm not sure how you can really move away from my expert witness vs your expert witness when examining evidence for a jury. Any ideas? A "technical judge" that adjudicates evidence into more explainable forms to be explained to the jury?
- WettowelReactor 15y agoConservative (risk aversion) and slow to change are not the same thing. By being slow to change law and lawyers introduce excessive risk in their offerings which, ironically, makes them negligent at their stated purpose.
- JFPetersen 15y agoYour "I hope" sections are exactly how it happens. The amount of preparation that goes into a trial like this is ridiculous, and the cross-examiner will have a host of questions that the expert witness cannot answer with any certainty.
- khafra 15y agoIn less media-saturated trials which have the same stakes for the participants, expert witnesses can say whatever they're paid to say. They're rarely challenged seriously on their testimony, or even their credentials. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cases_Where_DNA_Revealed_that_Bite_Mark_Analysis_Led_to_Wrongful_Arrests_and_Convictions.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cases_Where_DNA_Reve... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html?_r=1&...
- khafra 15y agoThe way the adversarial judicial process works is that lawyers hire expert witnesses based on their ability and willingness to look the jury in the eye and claim in loud, ringing tones that they are 100% confident of their findings.