3 ms·
> The practical truth is that if we required this level of scrutiny for every conviction to stick, we’d multiply by an order of magnitude or two the number of g
by cobaltoxide 4y ago
> The practical truth is that if we required this level of scrutiny for every conviction to stick, we’d multiply by an order of magnitude or two the number of guilty criminals who cannot be convicted.
The standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
There is no possible way Adnan Syed's conviction reached that standard.
- rayiner 4y agoA witness (Jay) testified at the trial that he saw Hae Min’s dead body in the trunk of Syed’s car. He stuck by that testimony when he was interviewed later: https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/ https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-... Forget the feels and focus on Bayesian probability. Hae had left Syed and she winds up dead shortly thereafter. Just statistically, it’s almost always the ex husband/boyfriend that killed her. Jay’s testimony clinches it.
- mecha_ghidorah 4y agoProbability isn't beyond reasonable doubt though. Like I finished the Serial podcast thinking Adnan probably was at least involved in her death, but I still think "just convict the boyfriend/husband based on a single testimony and probability" is a lower standard than I'd like.
- rayiner 4y ago"Beyond a reasonable doubt" can be expressed as a statistical probability. Most people put it at 98-99% probability. I think there's a 99% chance that Syed killed Hae.
- mecha_ghidorah 4y agoRiiiiiight but "Well statistically it's the boyfriend/ex boyfriend so lets lock him up" is different to "Well there is evidence that makes us think it probably was the ex boyfriend in this specific case"
- reggedtorespond 4y agoIs it possible that Jay could have given false testimony in exchange for unrelated drug charges being dropped?
- rayiner 4y agoWhy would he stick to the story all these years later?