4 ms·

Raise that bar however high you want; you cannot completely eliminate the possibility of a mistake.

sadhorse 3y ago
The defendant has been recognized by no less than 15 people. His DNA was found all over the crime scene . The victim's blood was found at his clothes. A video recording made by a surveillance camera depicts the whole murder. He himself confessed.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  Yep. That’s what I’m saying. Starting with a required confession is a good start. You could make it as hard as requiring the jury to fail to come up with any other believable narrative. It’s ok if a criminal can avoid the death penalty by blatantly refusing to confess in light of obviously incriminating evidence.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Confessions are fake all the time, including in many existing "they were executed despite being innocent" cases!
- f1refly 3y ago
  The murder has been staged. Organized crime found a doppelganger, made him wear the victims clothes and kill the other guy on cctv. They contacted the victim and told him to either confess or they will kill his children and parents.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    I think society is ok assuming that won’t happen
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Since we're on completely unrealistic scenarios anyway: that could still be a set up with a false confession.
- MiddleEndian 3y ago
  The real murderer was his long-lost twin, who had previously kidnapped him in a cell, performed the murders and the confession, then snuck out and swapped them!
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    That’s not a problem with the sentencing
    - MiddleEndian 3y ago
      It is. The point is that there can always be more information later. And you can't go back on the death penalty.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  I responded to this saying yes, but I think it left too much room for nitpicking. Although I do think this is above the bar, it’s also worth noting that in this scenario, the criminal did in fact seem to leave the crime scene. The much more obvious case is the one where they are caught mid act with many crowd sourced perspectives of the crime, like random shooters.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  I actually don't believe that the videos people will use will live up to the standard even if they claim they do. Observing average people, they model probability as a binary 0/1. They'll look at the video and be like "Yeah he's wearing Carhartt. It's him. He wears it" or whatever. And some other equally clueless nitwit will convince himself it wasn't me because I have 3 blue items and the killer had a red keychain. Essentially, it is crucial to me to prevent the state from exercising power over me because the agents of the state are frequently morons. And there's nothing worse than morons with power over you since you cannot reason them out of idiocy.
dragonwriter 3y ago
I’m not convinced that you can meaningfully raise the bar beyond “beyond a reasonable doubt” (or even that you can get juries to consistently apply “beyond a reasonable doubt”.) Regardless of jury instructions, I think what you normally get in practice is “beyond the point at which you are convinced the accused should be treated as guilty”.

The defendant has been recognized by no less than 15 people. His DNA was found all over the crime scene . The victim's blood was found at his clothes. A video recording made by a surveillance camera depicts the whole murder. He himself confessed.

fauxpause_ 3y ago
Yep. That’s what I’m saying. Starting with a required confession is a good start. You could make it as hard as requiring the jury to fail to come up with any other believable narrative. It’s ok if a criminal can avoid the death penalty by blatantly refusing to confess in light of obviously incriminating evidence.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Confessions are fake all the time, including in many existing "they were executed despite being innocent" cases!
f1refly 3y ago
The murder has been staged. Organized crime found a doppelganger, made him wear the victims clothes and kill the other guy on cctv. They contacted the victim and told him to either confess or they will kill his children and parents.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  I think society is ok assuming that won’t happen
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Since we're on completely unrealistic scenarios anyway: that could still be a set up with a false confession.
MiddleEndian 3y ago
The real murderer was his long-lost twin, who had previously kidnapped him in a cell, performed the murders and the confession, then snuck out and swapped them!
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  That’s not a problem with the sentencing
  - MiddleEndian 3y ago
    It is. The point is that there can always be more information later. And you can't go back on the death penalty.
fauxpause_ 3y ago
I responded to this saying yes, but I think it left too much room for nitpicking. Although I do think this is above the bar, it’s also worth noting that in this scenario, the criminal did in fact seem to leave the crime scene. The much more obvious case is the one where they are caught mid act with many crowd sourced perspectives of the crime, like random shooters.
renewiltord 3y ago
I actually don't believe that the videos people will use will live up to the standard even if they claim they do. Observing average people, they model probability as a binary 0/1. They'll look at the video and be like "Yeah he's wearing Carhartt. It's him. He wears it" or whatever. And some other equally clueless nitwit will convince himself it wasn't me because I have 3 blue items and the killer had a red keychain. Essentially, it is crucial to me to prevent the state from exercising power over me because the agents of the state are frequently morons. And there's nothing worse than morons with power over you since you cannot reason them out of idiocy.

dragonwriter 3y ago

I’m not convinced that you can meaningfully raise the bar beyond “beyond a reasonable doubt” (or even that you can get juries to consistently apply “beyond a reasonable doubt”.) Regardless of jury instructions, I think what you normally get in practice is “beyond the point at which you are convinced the accused should be treated as guilty”.