3 ms·

Not being in or having interactions with the criminal justice system, but having been involved in _many_ technology post-mortems, why wouldn’t you want to colle

Not being in or having interactions with the criminal justice system, but having been involved in _many_ technology post-mortems, why wouldn’t you want to collect exculpatory evidence? Without it, and in the best case an innocent individual goes free, but with a cloud of uncertainty. In the worst case an innocent individual is convicted of a crime and the perpetrator goes without consequence. If LEOs and prosecutors are incentivized based on raw arrest or conviction counts, then the consequence for being wrong should be astronomical (say, the sentence of the wrongfully convicted times a ≥ 1x multiplier).

sokoloff 5y ago
If you start from a premise that law enforcement is searching for the truth above all else, your conclusions make sense.
- jonhohle 5y ago
  I would think that as part of enforcing laws, truth seems like it would be relatively important. The idea of incorrectly convicting someone for a serious crime not only is an injustice to the innocent, it leaves the community in an unsafe and unwitting position regarding an actual perpetrator. In those cases it would be better to have no law enforcement involvement at all.
  - thaeli 5y ago
    The aftermath of many crimes, in America at least, would have been better with no law enforcement involvement at all. It's really that bad here.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Anyone who is acting to infringe upon real justice is most apt to either be a sociopath who only cares about keeping score or a lot more likely a moral person but not ethical person who regards their job as getting criminals. If they truly believe you are guilty then convicting a larger portion of guilty people even via impure means is a net good for society and incidentally for their career.
giantg2 5y ago
"... why wouldn’t you want to collect exculpatory evidence?" In my experience, it's mostly that they are lazy, incompetent, and/or have their mind made up. In some cases, it has to do with costs (eg they aren't going to DNA test a petty theft crime scene). Contrary to TV, forensics are actually used very rarely in the criminal justice system. Most of the ones that are used are fingerprints and drug tests.

sokoloff 5y ago

If you start from a premise that law enforcement is searching for the truth above all else, your conclusions make sense.

jonhohle 5y ago
I would think that as part of enforcing laws, truth seems like it would be relatively important. The idea of incorrectly convicting someone for a serious crime not only is an injustice to the innocent, it leaves the community in an unsafe and unwitting position regarding an actual perpetrator. In those cases it would be better to have no law enforcement involvement at all.
- thaeli 5y ago
  The aftermath of many crimes, in America at least, would have been better with no law enforcement involvement at all. It's really that bad here.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Anyone who is acting to infringe upon real justice is most apt to either be a sociopath who only cares about keeping score or a lot more likely a moral person but not ethical person who regards their job as getting criminals. If they truly believe you are guilty then convicting a larger portion of guilty people even via impure means is a net good for society and incidentally for their career.

giantg2 5y ago

"... why wouldn’t you want to collect exculpatory evidence?" In my experience, it's mostly that they are lazy, incompetent, and/or have their mind made up. In some cases, it has to do with costs (eg they aren't going to DNA test a petty theft crime scene). Contrary to TV, forensics are actually used very rarely in the criminal justice system. Most of the ones that are used are fingerprints and drug tests.