4 ms·
That's really making the assumption that this didn't happen before data tracking..... And that argument is much, much older than the digital age. If anything,
by asdfdelta 4y ago
That's really making the assumption that this didn't happen before data tracking.....
And that argument is much, much older than the digital age. If anything, extra tracking helps exonerate more than without it (false imprisonment, etc) https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/ https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/
- iinnPP 4y agoEvery extra data point is an opportunity for abuse, not exoneration. When you are facing wrongful conviction, the assumption is that you are unable to present evidence in an effective manner anyway.
- nebulousthree 4y agoI don't see how historicity weakens the argument. The reality is that data can be used to your benefit or against you. Having more of it doesn't shift the balance one way or another. It just means there's more opportunities to take it one way or the other. Your times article also makes no mention of location tracking raising exoneration rates. It talks most prominently about how cheap faulty field drug tests contributed significantly to the improper convictions.
- nearbuy 4y agoIf you're innocent, more information about what happened is more likely to exonerate you than incriminate you. If you're guilty, the extra data is more likely to incriminate you.