7 ms·

I can't imagine that this is unexpected, nor that surprising. I served on a jury nearly 20 years ago for a criminal case. And the biggest thing at the time, if

I can't imagine that this is unexpected, nor that surprising. I served on a jury nearly 20 years ago for a criminal case. And the biggest thing at the time, if you recall that long ago, was the biggest shows in TV were CSI and Law & Order. I certainly watched them a fair amount. Both, and the myriad of spin off and other shows in the same vein, presented a flashy and scientifically certain view of law enforcement. I bring up my time on that jury because the lawyers both spent a _huge_ amount of time preempting everyone's questions about why there wasn't any conclusive "scientific" evidence. No finger prints, no weapons marks, no expert testimony, etc. It turns out real life is far more messy than a 30-60 minute tv drama. So as CSI, et. al. gave us these unrealistic fever dreams about how crime is solved in the real world, so too do "True Crime" stories give us an unrealistic view of what happens out there in the real world.

potato3732842 2y ago
Exactly. They're just whining that the "police can do no wrong" sentiment born out of CSI/NCIS/Law and Order and post-9/11 first responder worship is coming to a close. And of course the public deference to them over that period enabled a bunch of shoddy work and that shoddy work is what underpins the current generation of "ignored X" and "framed Y" type true crime and so the pendulum of public perception swings back toward where it was in the 1990s when the public was becoming aware that police had, roughly speaking, spent the prior decades framing a bunch of black guys because that was easier than solving crimes. Edit: Now that I think about it it's kind of a condemnation of the industry how quickly the pendulum swung.
- recursivecaveat 2y ago
  I have been watching a little of daytime TV cop stuff while spending time with my older family. In one particular 44 minute episode the 4 plot lines are: solving a hate-crime by deceiving a suspect during interrogation into confessing; an object lesson that you shouldn't film cops lest you make them too nervous to arrest people, with tragic consequences; a 3 layered defense against the idea of an old boys club, in which even the would-be racist cop is bait-N-switched into being color-blind; and a Medicare fraud investigation. I felt like I was having an out-of-body experience it was so surreal in its overtness.
bee_rider 2y ago
We probably need better k-12 epistemology lessons, so every adult could reasonably be expected to understand different levels of doubt and scrutiny, evidentiary requirements. That said, juries should be skeptical of the story they are being sold, right? Maybe we should not lock up very many people for whom there isn’t any hard evidence of their guilt.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > Maybe we should not lock up very many people for whom there isn’t any hard evidence of their guilt. Would you consider eyewitness testimony to be 'hard evidence'? I don't have any CCTV in my house, so if a guest visiting my house beats me up, although my face is indisputable evidence that someone attacked me, the only evidence they did it is my eyewitness testimony. Would our society be a better place if my attacker was convicted, or if he wasn't?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
    What if you had two guests but you lied about which one beat you up while the other one was out? What if they were twins? What if the person was wearing a mask that you knew your guest owned, but it wasn't actually him? You're entering into this with the assumption that you know who beat you up. The police don't have anything other than your assertion. That's why corroborating evidence is needed.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Don’t forget the chance that they beat themselves up to get the other person in trouble and/or try to extort them. (I wish this was that fantastical a scenario)
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I mean, these are sort of fanciful soap opera scenarios, haha. More likely, if a guest beats you up, there will be some other witnesses and some motives. Anyway, police can get search warrants and work it out, or like… maybe the guest will feel guilty and admit what they did, perhaps after a stern talking-to along with the implication that they’ll probably be found out after some investigation anyway.
like_any_other 2y ago
> It turns out real life is far more messy than a 30-60 minute tv drama. But at the end of the day, they jury is asked to decide if an accusation is true "beyond a reasonable doubt".
matwood 2y ago
Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. True crime podcasts and shows have made the general population expect a higher level of evidence. I can't say I disagree.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  And how many people are wrongfully convicted?
  - matwood 2y ago
    Hard to know an exact number, since we only know of ones who crossed the huge hurdles to reverse a conviction. And those require a very high bar of exacting evidence like DNA. But, the system should bend towards letting guilty people go free rather putting innocent people in jail.
ikiris 2y ago
And I say it should be. If the entire argument is “these cops say so and also this one guy who may hate the defendant”, that should probably get dismissed. Make them submit body cam footage showing evidence and amazingly a lot of bad stuff gets less bad.
scarface_74 2y ago
What evidence did they have?

potato3732842 2y ago

Exactly. They're just whining that the "police can do no wrong" sentiment born out of CSI/NCIS/Law and Order and post-9/11 first responder worship is coming to a close. And of course the public deference to them over that period enabled a bunch of shoddy work and that shoddy work is what underpins the current generation of "ignored X" and "framed Y" type true crime and so the pendulum of public perception swings back toward where it was in the 1990s when the public was becoming aware that police had, roughly speaking, spent the prior decades framing a bunch of black guys because that was easier than solving crimes. Edit: Now that I think about it it's kind of a condemnation of the industry how quickly the pendulum swung.

recursivecaveat 2y ago
I have been watching a little of daytime TV cop stuff while spending time with my older family. In one particular 44 minute episode the 4 plot lines are: solving a hate-crime by deceiving a suspect during interrogation into confessing; an object lesson that you shouldn't film cops lest you make them too nervous to arrest people, with tragic consequences; a 3 layered defense against the idea of an old boys club, in which even the would-be racist cop is bait-N-switched into being color-blind; and a Medicare fraud investigation. I felt like I was having an out-of-body experience it was so surreal in its overtness.

bee_rider 2y ago

We probably need better k-12 epistemology lessons, so every adult could reasonably be expected to understand different levels of doubt and scrutiny, evidentiary requirements. That said, juries should be skeptical of the story they are being sold, right? Maybe we should not lock up very many people for whom there isn’t any hard evidence of their guilt.

michaelt 2y ago
> Maybe we should not lock up very many people for whom there isn’t any hard evidence of their guilt. Would you consider eyewitness testimony to be 'hard evidence'? I don't have any CCTV in my house, so if a guest visiting my house beats me up, although my face is indisputable evidence that someone attacked me, the only evidence they did it is my eyewitness testimony. Would our society be a better place if my attacker was convicted, or if he wasn't?
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  What if you had two guests but you lied about which one beat you up while the other one was out? What if they were twins? What if the person was wearing a mask that you knew your guest owned, but it wasn't actually him? You're entering into this with the assumption that you know who beat you up. The police don't have anything other than your assertion. That's why corroborating evidence is needed.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Don’t forget the chance that they beat themselves up to get the other person in trouble and/or try to extort them. (I wish this was that fantastical a scenario)
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I mean, these are sort of fanciful soap opera scenarios, haha. More likely, if a guest beats you up, there will be some other witnesses and some motives. Anyway, police can get search warrants and work it out, or like… maybe the guest will feel guilty and admit what they did, perhaps after a stern talking-to along with the implication that they’ll probably be found out after some investigation anyway.

like_any_other 2y ago

> It turns out real life is far more messy than a 30-60 minute tv drama. But at the end of the day, they jury is asked to decide if an accusation is true "beyond a reasonable doubt".

matwood 2y ago

Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. True crime podcasts and shows have made the general population expect a higher level of evidence. I can't say I disagree.

scarface_74 2y ago
And how many people are wrongfully convicted?
- matwood 2y ago
  Hard to know an exact number, since we only know of ones who crossed the huge hurdles to reverse a conviction. And those require a very high bar of exacting evidence like DNA. But, the system should bend towards letting guilty people go free rather putting innocent people in jail.

ikiris 2y ago

And I say it should be. If the entire argument is “these cops say so and also this one guy who may hate the defendant”, that should probably get dismissed. Make them submit body cam footage showing evidence and amazingly a lot of bad stuff gets less bad.

scarface_74 2y ago

What evidence did they have?