4 ms·

Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an intelligent person. I think we all want tools that help us do our jobs quickly and more re

by ISL 11y ago

Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an intelligent person. I think we all want tools that help us do our jobs quickly and more reliably. Forensic science is, in aggregate, a tool for discovering what's true. Improvements in forensic science are, on balance, a net positive. In the United States, nothing prevents prosecution. The state can bring whatever charges it wants. The bulwarks of our freedom are in the courts, the ballot box, and in the enumerated Bill of Rights. It's the jury of our peers and a speedy trial that check the ability of prosecutors to do us individual harm. As a society, it's our power at the ballot box that determines who we admit into the job of prosecution.

biomcgary 11y ago
The intelligence of individual officers is not the issue even though smart candidates are actively discriminated against in some locations (see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...). Prosecutors control the entire process and have largely negated trial by jury through the use of multiple charges and plea bargains (see: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/plea-bargain-pros-and-cons.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/plea-bargain-...). Many prosecutors are not directly elected, so the ballot box does not provide a direct path to a solution. Furthermore, I doubt many voters vote for candidates based on who they will appoint as a prosecutor.
rahimnathwani 11y ago
"Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an intelligent person." This could be selection bias at work. Perhaps you terminate conversations with less intelligent officers earlier, without realising the reason you do so. So, these less intelligent ones are forgotten, or removed from your sample because the conversation was not long enough to find strong evidence about intelligence.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
  > Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an intelligent person. No. He's just poor at judging intelligence, like everyone else. If they are polite and don't raise their voice and there are no obvious deficiencies in their vocabulary or pronunciation, and they seem to be minimally informed on current events and trends, you couldn't tell an idiot from a genius. You have no ability to see their thought processes, and you've never really bothered to try to infer them. Studies even suggest you don't know what's going on in your own brain either. This despite the fact that you are actually privy to at least some of your own thought process.
  - wfunction 11y ago
    > Studies even suggest [citation needed]
    - pessimizer 11y ago
      Eric Schwitzgebel specializes in papers about studies about this: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ The citations will probably be helpful for you to find the studies and similar ones. My favorites: Why did we think we dreamed in black and white? http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DreamB&W.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DreamB&W.htm How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of human echolocation. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Echo.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Echo.htm edit: here's an interview - http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-splintered-skeptic/ http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-splintered-skeptic/
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      Tor Nørretranders (1998). The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. Viking. ISBN 0-670-87579-1.
npsimons 11y ago
> I think we all want tools that help us do our jobs quickly and more reliably. I can't help but feel there's something vital missing from police, DA, etc training. I'm reminded very distinctly of my ethics class (which was required for graduation), where we were told the horror story of the THERAC-25. Even now, when I work on software for the military, I am very conscious of what my decisions may cost. Why aren't police, judges, district attorneys and forensic scientists required to take classes that tell them of stories like this one? I feel that juries aren't enough, especially when they are surrounded by those with much more experience and comfort in the courtroom.

by ISL 11y ago

biomcgary 11y ago

The intelligence of individual officers is not the issue even though smart candidates are actively discriminated against in some locations (see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...). Prosecutors control the entire process and have largely negated trial by jury through the use of multiple charges and plea bargains (see: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/plea-bargain-pros-and-cons.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/plea-bargain-...). Many prosecutors are not directly elected, so the ballot box does not provide a direct path to a solution. Furthermore, I doubt many voters vote for candidates based on who they will appoint as a prosecutor.

rahimnathwani 11y ago

"Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an intelligent person." This could be selection bias at work. Perhaps you terminate conversations with less intelligent officers earlier, without realising the reason you do so. So, these less intelligent ones are forgotten, or removed from your sample because the conversation was not long enough to find strong evidence about intelligence.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
> Every law enforcement officer I've talked with at length has been an intelligent person. No. He's just poor at judging intelligence, like everyone else. If they are polite and don't raise their voice and there are no obvious deficiencies in their vocabulary or pronunciation, and they seem to be minimally informed on current events and trends, you couldn't tell an idiot from a genius. You have no ability to see their thought processes, and you've never really bothered to try to infer them. Studies even suggest you don't know what's going on in your own brain either. This despite the fact that you are actually privy to at least some of your own thought process.
- wfunction 11y ago
  > Studies even suggest [citation needed]
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    Eric Schwitzgebel specializes in papers about studies about this: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ The citations will probably be helpful for you to find the studies and similar ones. My favorites: Why did we think we dreamed in black and white? http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DreamB&W.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/DreamB&W.htm How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of human echolocation. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Echo.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Echo.htm edit: here's an interview - http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-splintered-skeptic/ http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-splintered-skeptic/
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Tor Nørretranders (1998). The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. Viking. ISBN 0-670-87579-1.

npsimons 11y ago

> I think we all want tools that help us do our jobs quickly and more reliably. I can't help but feel there's something vital missing from police, DA, etc training. I'm reminded very distinctly of my ethics class (which was required for graduation), where we were told the horror story of the THERAC-25. Even now, when I work on software for the military, I am very conscious of what my decisions may cost. Why aren't police, judges, district attorneys and forensic scientists required to take classes that tell them of stories like this one? I feel that juries aren't enough, especially when they are surrounded by those with much more experience and comfort in the courtroom.