4 ms·

Fewer murders are “solved” today which suggests the opposite. The existence of things like DNA tests causes people to want more evidence today before they’re w

by Retric 3y ago

Fewer murders are “solved” today which suggests the opposite. The existence of things like DNA tests causes people to want more evidence today before they’re willing to convict resulting in fewer dubious arrests. Which may mean we’re simply catching the wrong person less often, but we could also be letting more guilty people go. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unsolved-killings-record-high https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...

silverquiet 3y ago
I believe the Atlantic had an article about this awhile back and made a plausible case that a rising proportion of gun murders probably lowers the solve rate. Basically anything that puts some distance between the victim and perpetrator tends to obfuscate evidence.
pixl97 3y ago
>but we could also be letting more guilty people go. Yes, this is how the US legal system is designed. >want more evidence today before they’re willing to convict This is why you should be completely suspect of the data from the past. Law enforcement is great at going out, grabbing the usual suspects, then pinning some evidence on them. This is great for LEO. They get a win, the public feels safe, and they get reelected. It's unfortunate the actual killer is still on the street because it's a lot easier to frame someone than it is to do real (expensive) police work. https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_(criminal_justice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_(criminal_justi...
- Retric 3y ago
  Yes that’s what I was suggesting. However, it’s worth remembering that some people kill quite often so there’s real costs to having extremely high standards. Which doesn’t mean we should do the old convict a random drifter in the area, just acknowledge there’s real negative consequences in both directions.

by Retric 3y ago

silverquiet 3y ago

I believe the Atlantic had an article about this awhile back and made a plausible case that a rising proportion of gun murders probably lowers the solve rate. Basically anything that puts some distance between the victim and perpetrator tends to obfuscate evidence.

pixl97 3y ago

>but we could also be letting more guilty people go. Yes, this is how the US legal system is designed. >want more evidence today before they’re willing to convict This is why you should be completely suspect of the data from the past. Law enforcement is great at going out, grabbing the usual suspects, then pinning some evidence on them. This is great for LEO. They get a win, the public feels safe, and they get reelected. It's unfortunate the actual killer is still on the street because it's a lot easier to frame someone than it is to do real (expensive) police work. https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_(criminal_justice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_(criminal_justi...

Retric 3y ago
Yes that’s what I was suggesting. However, it’s worth remembering that some people kill quite often so there’s real costs to having extremely high standards. Which doesn’t mean we should do the old convict a random drifter in the area, just acknowledge there’s real negative consequences in both directions.