4 ms·
Remember that one still needs proof. My DNA on a victim's clothes does not mean I committed the crime.
by assimpleaspossi 2mo ago
Remember that one still needs proof. My DNA on a victim's clothes does not mean I committed the crime.
- estearum 2mo agoIn principle. In reality, juries often hold evidence like this (and also-very-unreliable eye witness testimony) in high regard, based on how it's positioned into the narrative.
- alistairSH 2mo agoIn reality, juries often hold evidence like this in high regard, based on how it's positioned on CSI:Some-City television.
- alistairSH 2mo agoAre you willing to trust 12 random schmoes to make that call correctly? Especially in the face of an overzealous prosecutor?
- bell-cot 2mo agoThe fake-it-'till-you-make-it crime lab "scientist" is worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist
- dpb001 2mo agoExactly. I’ve served on two juries and the experiences left me shaking my head. In one case the judge’s instructions were dismissed by a majority of the jury members with a “yeah, but…”.
- assimpleaspossi 2mo agoThe same process we've used for centuries? You got something better? I'm sure you don't. You are also ignoring that the 12 random schmoes are selected by both sides attorneys and given instructions and facts and can still be overruled by a judge (under circumstances) plus the possibility of appeal. Your response is very uninformed at best.
- alistairSH 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]