View Single Post
Old 04-11-2012, 05:21 PM   #25
Tannhauser
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 138,239, Level: 100 Points: 138,239, Level: 100 Points: 138,239, Level: 100
Activity: 28% Activity: 28% Activity: 28%
 
Tannhauser's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,923
Training Exp: 30+
Training Type: Powerlifting
Fav Exercise: Front squat
Fav Supp: Creatine. C'est tout.
Reputation: 326815
Tannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite memberTannhauser is an elite member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen View Post
Improper convictions are *mostly* a thing of the past.
I can't see how this can be verified. How can we ever know what proportion of convictions are wrongful?

Quote:
With todays technology, we tend to get the convictions right much more often.
I wouldn't dispute that technology has improved the likelihood of getting it right. At the same time, I think it would be naive to place too much trust in technology.

In fact, there's a worrying aspect to it. Jurors are largely, in my view, poorly equipped to judge the quality of scientific evidence. This may sound arrogant, but I don't think the standard of scientific literacy is very high. Jurors tend to be uncritical about prosecution evidence that sounds sciencey, in the same way they are uncritical about eye-witness testimony (which we now know is often less reliable than it might appear).
__________________
Lifetime best: 500/363/573 @ 220 belt only

"The proper study of mankind is books" - Aldous Huxley
Tannhauser is online now   Reply With Quote