3 ms·

Evidence handling and testing should not be under the control of police, or even prosecution. Incentives need to be aligned toward justice, not convictions.

• picadores 3y ago
  Full Process Surveilance is needed to make evidence admissable. If it aint filmed the whole way, it aint valid.
  • dylan604 3y ago
    I think the searches need to be done with full body camera back up to be sure. This would be an attempt at my partner planting evidence when arriving at the location for me to find. It also should find the situations where the person that planted the evidence from suggesting for someone else to look where he planted it. Of course, this does nothing for planting evidence before the search, but would hopefully stem the opportunity a bit.
    • picadores 3y ago
      No complete record - no case..
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• arcbyte 3y ago
  I think there's more work we can do to balance the power of individual defendants against the state, but the adversarial justice system is the most accurate and effective system for mediating public safety, punishment, and revenge ever developed in the history of the world.
  • Lord-Jobo 3y ago
    The main concern here is that the system is being nearly entirely bypassed. Literally 98% of cases plea out^1, bypassing the entire system of court procedure that is supposed to resolve these issues. 1:https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...
    • hiatus 3y ago
      Submitting a plea is part of court procedure, and I'd also point out that the data you shared is for US federal cases, which have a notoriously high rate of conviction which could explain why people are quick to plea out. > In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%). So 1669 defendants went to trial, and 1379 were found guilty, roughly 80%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-than-1-of-defendants-in-federal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-tha...
      • giantg2 3y ago
        The data isn't much different in my state where 95%+ of criminal convictions end in a deal.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • phpisthebest 3y ago
        so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this 1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty 2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality
        • 3y ago
  • phpisthebest 3y ago
    Dollar for Dollar funding of Public Defenders office would be a huge first step. For ever Dollar a government gives to the prosecutors office, a dollar should be budgeted for public defense. currently in most states is like 10%, if that
• dylan604 3y ago
  Well, if you don't think it should be under control of police or prosecution, who do you suggest needs to do it? The defense? A third party private contractor like Theranos? Who's going to be the ones validating whoever is decided can do the testing?
  • Zigurd 3y ago
    It's a kind of factoring-out from police, who are often systemically racist and corrupt. factoring-out responses to mental health crises, reducing the amount of armed response, etc. reduces the danger from police violence. Factoring out evidence handling to a separate agency that is just as motivated to prove innocence as guilt would improve the use of forensics, and reduce bad plea deals and prosecutions.
    • dylan604 3y ago
      what other agency staffed by whom?
  • jihiggins 3y ago
    everything you listed is still better than giving it to the cops. "these random examples sound bad" isn't really a good argument for doing nothing.
    • dylan604 3y ago
      random examples are necessary because we were walked to the edge of the cliff with no actual solution provided, so hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to encourage moving the train further down the tracks. it's not a bad idea, but it's obviously ripe for just an additional layer of bureaucratic waste. clearly, there is a lack of trust that the police could handle evidence properly. so the natural follow up is who is trust worthy? how would it work? cops are called to the scene, but are then only there to "secure it" until some 3rd party comes along to collect evidence? what's the purpose of a detective at that point? we're not just shifting that role from a police agency to some 3rd party. are we going to re-establish the Pinkertons? if the detectives are no longer a role in the police, then more than likely those that would be attracted to that role would just join the 3rd party instead. so you haven't solved anything other than these people are no longer part of the police but are still involved.