View Single Post
Old 04-11-2012, 05:21 PM   #25 (permalink)
Tannhauser
Tannhauser
trusts science > experience
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 114,455, Level: 100 Points: 114,455, Level: 100 Points: 114,455, Level: 100
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
 
Tannhauser's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1,795
Training Exp: 30+
Training Type: Powerlifting
Fav Exercise: Front squat
Fav Supp: Creatine. C'est tout.
Reputation: 191122
Tannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master memberTannhauser is a master 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).
__________________
500/363/573 @ 220 belt only
Tannhauser is online now   Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Share with Facebook