3 ms·

So I assume they're also using them to exonerate people who otherwise don't have an alibi but could be falsely accused, right? Right??

by imgabe 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago
Absolutely not, this metadata is useful as leverage for getting plea bargains out of people. Exonerating someone removes leverage.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Withholding potentially-exonerating evidence from the defense in a criminal prosecution is a big no-no. Of course it happens on a regular basis, but if you've got the money to fight it nicely sets up the basis for a reversal of a conviction on appeal. See: http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/exculpatory-evidence-punishment http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-e.... This is not a search or privacy problem per se. Most situations where exculpating evidence is withheld aren't so clear-cut as photographic evidence of the supposed perpetrator's car in a different place. It's usually something more like a statement by a witness whose exculpatory potential is ambiguous enough that a prosecutor can rationalize it as irrelevant. Indeed, I think technology ameliorates this problem. It's hard for prosecutors to withhold DNA evidence, for example, because juries know its widely used and take it so seriously. If use of photographic evidence in prosecutions becomes common, I think it will be difficult for prosecutors to withhold relevant information from the defense without compromising their ability to get convictions from juries.
corresation 13y ago
Your car being somewhere at a particular time is nothing more than an investigative hint. It proves neither guilt nor innocence.
- imgabe 13y ago
  You are presumed innocent. That doesn't have to be proven. If your car is somewhere else, that could create a reasonable doubt.
  - corresation 13y ago
    You are presumed innocent. That doesn't have to be proven. In the purely theoretical sense, sure. In actual court, however, the whole purpose of alibis is to prove innocence, which is exactly the context that we are discussion. If you want to simply wax about the presumption of innocence, then the defendant need not provide any contrary evidence, as they have nothing to prove.

So I assume they're also using them to exonerate people who otherwise don't have an alibi but could be falsely accused, right? Right??

by imgabe 13y ago

So I assume they're also using them to exonerate people who otherwise don't have an alibi but could be falsely accused, right? Right??

ihsw 13y ago

Absolutely not, this metadata is useful as leverage for getting plea bargains out of people. Exonerating someone removes leverage.

rayiner 13y ago
Withholding potentially-exonerating evidence from the defense in a criminal prosecution is a big no-no. Of course it happens on a regular basis, but if you've got the money to fight it nicely sets up the basis for a reversal of a conviction on appeal. See: http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/exculpatory-evidence-punishment http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-e.... This is not a search or privacy problem per se. Most situations where exculpating evidence is withheld aren't so clear-cut as photographic evidence of the supposed perpetrator's car in a different place. It's usually something more like a statement by a witness whose exculpatory potential is ambiguous enough that a prosecutor can rationalize it as irrelevant. Indeed, I think technology ameliorates this problem. It's hard for prosecutors to withhold DNA evidence, for example, because juries know its widely used and take it so seriously. If use of photographic evidence in prosecutions becomes common, I think it will be difficult for prosecutors to withhold relevant information from the defense without compromising their ability to get convictions from juries.

corresation 13y ago

Your car being somewhere at a particular time is nothing more than an investigative hint. It proves neither guilt nor innocence.

imgabe 13y ago
You are presumed innocent. That doesn't have to be proven. If your car is somewhere else, that could create a reasonable doubt.
- corresation 13y ago
  You are presumed innocent. That doesn't have to be proven. In the purely theoretical sense, sure. In actual court, however, the whole purpose of alibis is to prove innocence, which is exactly the context that we are discussion. If you want to simply wax about the presumption of innocence, then the defendant need not provide any contrary evidence, as they have nothing to prove.