3 ms·

> I'll assume it implies a 90% chance the evidence says the defendant is innocent Evidence isn't there to _prove_ anything, else we wouldn't need to ask anyo

> I'll assume it implies a 90% chance the evidence says the defendant is innocent Evidence isn't there to _prove_ anything, else we wouldn't need to ask anyone to be a juror. That's why we use "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt" as our metric. It also assumes that all juries, once they see bite mark analysis, presume it's magic then simply decide they're going to convict at that moment and shut off their brains for the rest of the trial. Do people really believe this is something that happens? > A 99% probability of innocence is probably about right in that part of the criminal prosecution decision tree. I find it very difficult to believe there's a single piece of evidence in a trial that could convince anyone of this. The totality of the evidence is what must be considered. A single test tells you about a single sample in isolation with respect to it's time and method of collection. It doesn't definitely prove anything about an event, and I'm astonished that you could see it that way; unless you're operating under the presumption that all District Attorneys are corrupt to the point of no longer caring about justice and truth. There are certainly examples of corruption, but to presume it's the norm to the extent that a single piece of evidence presented in a particular fashion would cause you to turn _your_ back on justice and truth as a matter of rote course. How is that an improvement?

puffoflogic 4y ago
> Do people really believe this is something that happens? What do you think the point of making all those TV procedurals was? Jurors have been explicitly trained to care about "scientific evidence" to the exclusion of all else. Look at the Chauvin trial. Dude committed murder captured by a half dozen cameras, but the trial spent about 80% of time agonizing over nigh-irrelevant scientific evidence, because that's what the jury cares about.
hedora 4y ago
The use of this test, which requires exactly the same forensic evidence as a decisive one says a lot about the prosecution. The only reason to use this is if you think a more accurate (and cheaper) test would prove the suspect's innocence. That sounds like a crazy conspiracy, but, from the headline 90% of the time, the test is misadministered. That suggests that, indeed, all DA's that use this tactic are "corrupt to the point of no longer caring about justice and truth". Do you have an alternate explanation for a 90% error rate?

puffoflogic 4y ago

> Do people really believe this is something that happens? What do you think the point of making all those TV procedurals was? Jurors have been explicitly trained to care about "scientific evidence" to the exclusion of all else. Look at the Chauvin trial. Dude committed murder captured by a half dozen cameras, but the trial spent about 80% of time agonizing over nigh-irrelevant scientific evidence, because that's what the jury cares about.

hedora 4y ago

The use of this test, which requires exactly the same forensic evidence as a decisive one says a lot about the prosecution. The only reason to use this is if you think a more accurate (and cheaper) test would prove the suspect's innocence. That sounds like a crazy conspiracy, but, from the headline 90% of the time, the test is misadministered. That suggests that, indeed, all DA's that use this tactic are "corrupt to the point of no longer caring about justice and truth". Do you have an alternate explanation for a 90% error rate?