3 ms·

This is one of the most brilliant comments I've read in months. How can we make this perspective more mainstream?

• mercurial 13y ago
  It is? It reads like a mix of truth and sophistry. If somebody frames you for murder, you may well blame the prosecution for being incompetent, but the main guilty party is certainly the one who planted the evidence in the first place.
  • mindslight 13y ago
    Yes, the murderer is still guilty of murder, just like the fraudster is still guilty of fraud. But this doesn't account for the additional damage caused by complete reliance on "evidence" that shouldn't even pass a sniff test. One would very much fault a prosecutor for continuing to press a murder case with the sole piece of evidence being a typewritten note saying "I, John Smith, committed this murder".
    • abofh 13y ago
      (If I understand the original argument) a better analogy would be being framed for murder while the guy who framed you cashed out a life insurance policy on you. You neither took out the policy nor benefited from it - yet the burden is on you, not those who paid out incorrectly, to prove your innocence. The prosecutors aren't being blamed here (by OP), but those who profit by blind prosecution are.
• mindslight 13y ago
  I really don't know, besides just stating the truth and hoping people recognize it. I think the disconnect is ultimately due to a precession of the model - as a system gets taken for granted, people analyze things in terms of its paradigm and its failures become seen in terms of the system's abstractions rather than the underlying reality. On the other hand, when I'd write comments like this five years ago, they'd generally get a net negative reception. So it seems like widespread belief in manifest human inventorying and tracking is hopefully wearing off.