4 ms·
Yes but it’s a presumption rather than something that is proven. If the guy who done it was blonde, 6’2”, driving a red Mercedes, and he wrapped the body in a
by d1sxeyes 2y ago
Yes but it’s a presumption rather than something that is proven.
If the guy who done it was blonde, 6’2”, driving a red Mercedes, and he wrapped the body in a green rug, and it turns out that the bloodstains on green rug of the 6’2” blonde guy with the red Mercedes that you arrested for it are only actually 70% likely to be the victim’s rather than 99.5%, while LEGALLY the guy in prison now can benefit from the presumption of innocence, I’m not sure I’d be comfortable if he moved in downstairs.
Proven innocence would be “oh we have irrefutable video evidence that this guy was two states away at the time”.
- jyounker 2y agoThis seems like a stretch. As far as I know, usually DNA evidence in exonerations is more along the lines of, "The DNA is 98% match for a known killer who was arrested for similar crime a few years later."
- d1sxeyes 2y agoEven that is problematic. A 98% match means there’s a 1 in 50 chance that the sample is not from the person that it’s been matched to. How many cases do you have to cross match with how many felons before you get a false positive? It’s probably not as many as you think, but I don’t have the numbers to do the maths with. Suggested reading on this topic: https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-about-dna-matches-crazy/ https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-...
- John_Cena 2y agoIt has nothing to do with 'proving', since your ability to prove is always suspect. It's basic civics.
- d1sxeyes 2y agoThat’s sort of what I’m saying, these convictions getting overturned does not prove innocence, it just means that guilt is not proven adequately.