A discussion on capital punishment?

[McAvoy]

I don't know some nanny cams have pretty high resolution where you can absolutely see the face.

Husband and wife are killed in their home but their nanny cam records it all, I'd say that is absolute proof. May not capture the killers motivations, but it will capture the murders.

Or you have recording from a crap camera. But you have his DNA on the bodies, you have the murder weapon, you have the bloody clothes that show a pattern of blood spray, or fight etc. You have a couple of witnesses who saw him enter and exit the house at the time of the murder.

Not absolute proof, but certainly enough to convict the murderer. Motivations would be the question on whether or not this should be a death sentence.

[Nealithi]

From my previous post:

You want to combat a miscarriage of justice? Make the judges and prosecutors directly responsible for wrong convictions. If at any point in the future it can be proven that the person that was sentenced to death was innocent make the judge that ordered the execution and the prosecutor that brought the case before the court directly responsible for his death and sentence them to death.

But no, absolute proof does not in fact exist. Witnesses are known to be unreliable. Video evidence doesn't work like it does on TV. Most cameras are usually black and white and of very low quality. DNA is one of the types of evidence that is somewhat solid, but even then, it's only somewhat solid. Twins will have the same DNA. There are other methods, like for example fingerprinting that is indeed unique, even in the case of twins. But frankly, most police forces ignore it.

In the US there was a scandal a few years ago when it was discovered that there was a massive rape kit backlog. Why? because technology not only isn't at the level of NCIS but it's usually ignored or out of reach for most small town police departments. And when it isn't judges and prosecutors are out of touch with it.

As for the Boston Marathon bomber... didn't they shoot somebody and flee after the image of them was posted but before anybody had identified them?

Lots I would love to discuss. The ignored technologies being an interesting one. However let's point to your method of stopping wrongful convictions. Who allows the later evidence to be gathered or used? Oh yeah the same prosecutors and judges that did the sentencing. They are reluctant to damage a record now. Make it a crime if they got it wrong and all they will do is close the door entirely. You would have to scrap the entire justice system and rebuild it with the new rules examined for loopholes ahead of time.

And yes I know there is no magical 'enhance' button for videos. But the bombers in question were seen and tracked using the footage. The exact timeline before shooting began and the final capture I am unaware of. This would be enough.

From what I have heard the fingerprint thing is not as absolute as originally thought as while I will have a different set of fingerprints than you. You might have a fingerprint in common with me. The full set gives a ten digit combination. But getting a match on one or two might actually be letting guilty off and incriminating the innocent.

So much it might be interesting to discuss. Please continue.

[AlucardNoir]

That's like saying politicians are corrupt so we should just kill all of them and start over anew. That's not how society and civilization work.

If you really want to bring justice to the system then join it. If enough people like you are willing to join the legal system then things will get better. Judges and prosecutors aren't hereditary positions, anybody can theoretically join their ranks. But I guess it's easier to just asume all judges and prosecutors would rather protect their position and the system then actually do what the system is there to do.

Regarding the bombers, it would have only been enough had they been cough and arrested or at least an attempt at arresting them been made before they tried fleeing and starting murdering other people. When they were caught they weren't the bombing suspects, they were just two murderers who had killed a man and shot a police officer.

Now, in regards to fingerprinting, that's partially true. As far as we know all humans have unique fingerprints and sets, even identical twins that share genetics and epigenetics have unique fingerprints. They also are permanent. You would literally need to remove the skin off your fingers to get rid of them permanently. Chemicals, burns and the like only remove them temporarily. The real problem is that most fingerprints at a scene can be partial or smudged. The actual fingerprints on the criminals fingers will be unique, that small part that the forensic scientific can get at the scene of the crime, that might be shared by multiple people.

And then there are computers. Computers don't classify differences in fingerprinting, they just see where a ridge starts and where it ends. That makes them very fast and accurate with full fingerprints, it also makes them very bad with partial prints and smudged ones. Fortunately you still have a forensic look over a computers results and in case of partial matches have him see if an identification can be made with any of the partial matches. Ideally the forensic scientists will tell you if there is a match or not. Unfortunately, sometimes detectives or higher ups will put presure on the forensic scientist and try to get them to confirm a partial match for a suspect just so they can either make their quota, mollify the press/public or their higher ups. But in that last case it's not the science that's to blame but humans.

Einsteins theory was initially rejected by certain members of the scientific community because it upended centuries of Newtonian physics. Biological and genetic observations are outright rejected by certain left leaning academicians and members of the public because of fears of eugenics.

In theory there is solid science behind fingerprinting, in practice presure can be put on those practicing forensic to get results even when there is not enough data, or to only use certain tools because they are cheaper or can be mass produced, or because other forces in other countries use them.

Science is objective, people are not; scientists are people.

[Nealithi]

That's like saying politicians are corrupt so we should just kill all of them and start over anew. That's not how society and civilization work.

But it is often mentioned as a good place to start.
Seriously though I said tear down a broken system, not kill numerous people to no effect. There are so many broken elements in the current system that internal change seems to be trying to pee up a rope.

If you really want to bring justice to the system then join it. If enough people like you are willing to join the legal system then things will get better. Judges and prosecutors aren't hereditary positions, anybody can theoretically join their ranks. But I guess it's easier to just asume all judges and prosecutors would rather protect their position and the system then actually do what the system is there to do.

I think it might behoove us more to get someone younger than me in the system to begin reforms. As to such assumptions. Well if I thought of one case in NYC and thought every court did it then I would have to agree. But similar issues coming from NY, PA, TX, CA, and FL that I have heard of makes it seem far more systemic. Add in that my only interaction with a judge was a traffic issue. First offense and right after I got out of the military was the judge to say he could and was tempted to make me disappear to prison with a flick of his pen? And for clarity I did not have my insurance card on me when I was checked. Not I was speeding in a school zone or anything violent. Yeah not seeing much level headed reasoning in the judicial system.

Now, in regards to fingerprinting, that's partially true. As far as we know all humans have unique fingerprints and sets, even identical twins that share genetics and epigenetics have unique fingerprints. They also are permanent. You would literally need to remove the skin off your fingers to get rid of them permanently. Chemicals, burns and the like only remove them temporarily. The real problem is that most fingerprints at a scene can be partial or smudged. The actual fingerprints on the criminals fingers will be unique, that small part that the forensic scientific can get at the scene of the crime, that might be shared by multiple people.

And then there are computers. Computers don't classify differences in fingerprinting, they just see where a ridge starts and where it ends. That makes them very fast and accurate with full fingerprints, it also makes them very bad with partial prints and smudged ones. Fortunately you still have a forensic look over a computers results and in case of partial matches have him see if an identification can be made with any of the partial matches. Ideally the forensic scientists will tell you if there is a match or not. Unfortunately, sometimes detectives or higher ups will put presure on the forensic scientist and try to get them to confirm a partial match for a suspect just so they can either make their quota, mollify the press/public or their higher ups. But in that last case it's not the science that's to blame but humans.

Einsteins theory was initially rejected by certain members of the scientific community because it upended centuries of Newtonian physics. Biological and genetic observations are outright rejected by certain left leaning academicians and members of the public because of fears of eugenics.

In theory there is solid science behind fingerprinting, in practice presure can be put on those practicing forensic to get results even when there is not enough data, or to only use certain tools because they are cheaper or can be mass produced, or because other forces in other countries use them.

Science is objective, people are not; scientists are people.

But isn't that the point? There is a failure point and a point of uncertainty that is being suppressed by the judicial system for the sake of making convictions?

When you point out that the system is being broken in such ways. How can I trust what is coming out to confidently extinguish someone else's life? That is the point we were discussing. If the science was used properly then only proper matches would be used in court. Or notes that this is only a partial match that allowed further investigation. But is not proof itself.

You asked how one could want very certain evidence of guilt to pass a death sentence. My answer is I don't want to find that officer Bob forced a positive outcome in a lab to get someone he disliked or needed a murder trial going his way for a promotion. Because if I am one of those jurors. I am one of those declaring to end someone's life. And my personal rules are immediate need to prevent further loss of life. And for the unrepentant murderer. Show me Charles Manson and you can hand me the gun and I will do it myself. Give me a kid that was passing through town and knows no one there? Better be showing some damned good evidence.

[AlucardNoir]

You asked how one could want very certain evidence of guilt to pass a death sentence. My answer is I don't want to find that officer Bob forced a positive outcome in a lab to get someone he disliked or needed a murder trial going his way for a promotion. Because if I am one of those jurors. I am one of those declaring to end someone's life. And my personal rules are immediate need to prevent further loss of life. And for the unrepentant murderer. Show me Charles Manson and you can hand me the gun and I will do it myself. Give me a kid that was passing through town and knows no one there? Better be showing some damned good evidence.

And that right there is the problem. How can good evidence be shown when you are suspect of all evidence? It's the same with rape allegations and convictions. Tell a feminist about how few alleged rapists go to prison and they'll tell you that's because prosecutors only take cases they think they can win to court. Mention fake rape allegations and convictions and they'll tell you they're rare - despite the fact that someone convicted for a false rape allegation has to have been in that small percentage of people prosecutors thought they had enough proof to send to jail - and were proven right. It's a catch 22. You claim you want proof but when presented with proof you just want to doubt that proof.

As for your potential sting in prison... that's the law as much as it's the judge. If the law says the judge can fine you or send you to jail it's up the the judge. Some judges always send people accused of certain felonies and crimes to jail, indifferent of the lawyer, while others will do their best to avoid jail time. That's a problem with the the way the law is written. Judges have no obligation to respect the spirit of the law, only the letter of the law. And the problem with the spirit of the law is that it actually changes throughout time.

Hell, the quintessential example is a case I heard of that happened in Florida. Two teens got arrested because they sexted. Why? because they were found to be in possession of nudes of underage minors and because they had disseminated photos of underage minors. A law meant to protect minors used against said minors. A law that was amended later that same year: https://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/florida-sexting/index.html

PS. Also, without reading the relevant NY laws I can't be sure but that judge might or might not have been trying to scare you straight as it were.

[Nealithi]

Hell, the quintessential example is a case I heard of that happened in Florida. Two teens got arrested because they sexted. Why? because they were found to be in possession of nudes of underage minors and because they had disseminated photos of underage minors. A law meant to protect minors used against said minors. A law that was amended later that same year: https://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/florida-sexting/index.html

PS. Also, without reading the relevant NY laws I can't be sure but that judge might or might not have been trying to scare you straight as it were.

1st, I know that one. I did not hear that they had changed the law. I can't read the article you linked to at work. But I shall at home. I use the example to point out how technology is racing ahead of laws and the purpose of laws is being inverted.

Not trying to be pedantic. NJ, not NY. And honestly all he did was make me angry. The prosecutor jumped in to point out this was fine. This was a zero points issue with a small fine. Which is why the threat was from left field to me.

And please do not get me wrong. I have heard others speak of positive instances with judges. My instance was not glowing.

As for the thread topic. I may be a poor choice for a juror. (And that is becoming another instance of irritation to me. I know people that have sat juries. But I have not. And what I heard curls hair.) I want to know about the processes used. What are the real estimates of accuracy. Not what I am told this time on this case. But actually have some idea what they are saying. Before I condemn a human being to death. I think science could do it. But as you yourself said. People get in the process and make me question what is delivered.

[AlucardNoir]

As for the thread topic. I may be a poor choice for a juror. (And that is becoming another instance of irritation to me. I know people that have sat juries. But I have not. And what I heard curls hair.) I want to know about the processes used. What are the real estimates of accuracy. Not what I am told this time on this case. But actually have some idea what they are saying. Before I condemn a human being to death. I think science could do it. But as you yourself said. People get in the process and make me question what is delivered.

That's why most countries don't use jurors. Hell, I only went to law school, and still was thought about fingerprinting. And judges have to rely on expert testimony not their interpretation of the scientific facts presented by any party. And I do mean have to. They can't reinterpret what an expert says in court or whatever study or facts that the expert was called to clarify. At least that's how it's in my country and most of continental Europe. The modern world is far too complex for anyone to know everything about it, hell, law is too complex and most lawyers and judges tend to specialize sooner or later on just a few narrow fields - family law, corporate, penal, tax law etc.

[Nealithi]

As for the thread topic. I may be a poor choice for a juror. (And that is becoming another instance of irritation to me. I know people that have sat juries. But I have not. And what I heard curls hair.) I want to know about the processes used. What are the real estimates of accuracy. Not what I am told this time on this case. But actually have some idea what they are saying. Before I condemn a human being to death. I think science could do it. But as you yourself said. People get in the process and make me question what is delivered.

That's why most countries don't use jurors. Hell, I only went to law school, and still was thought about fingerprinting. And judges have to rely on expert testimony not their interpretation of the scientific facts presented by any party. And I do mean have to. They can't reinterpret what an expert says in court or whatever study or facts that the expert was called to clarify. At least that's how it's in my country and most of continental Europe. The modern world is far too complex for anyone to know everything about it, hell, law is too complex and most lawyers and judges tend to specialize sooner or later on just a few narrow fields - family law, corporate, penal, tax law etc.

Oh I understand specializing. My issue on judges as stated and jurors is you may not use any sense. Just go by what is given. If a lawyer holds up a keyboard and calls it a monitor and that it is responsible for recording thermal images in the room. As a juror you are supposed to just say yes to that. No common sense at all. So why bother? If you spoke to someone like that in regular conversation you would try to correct them. And if that did not work you would walk away as the person was full of it. Now imagine if that same person tries to talk intelligently on a subject you don't know. . .

[AlucardNoir]

Oh I understand specializing. My issue on judges as stated and jurors is you may not use any sense. Just go by what is given. If a lawyer holds up a keyboard and calls it a monitor and that it is responsible for recording thermal images in the room. As a juror you are supposed to just say yes to that. No common sense at all. So why bother? If you spoke to someone like that in regular conversation you would try to correct them. And if that did not work you would walk away as the person was full of it. Now imagine if that same person tries to talk intelligently on a subject you don't know. . .

While I understand what you're trying to say, using an absurd example doesn't really help your point. Things are only made worse by the fact that lawyers do in fact use words in a completely different manner then most people. Because all legal profesional in a country must be able to understand each other, especially in cases of criminal law, they all must use the same definitions, concepts and notions for certain legal phrases and words. While language naturally changes laws and legal professionals might keep to the original usage of a word long after it has been abandoned by the general public.

As for judged and common sense, at least in my country if a judge thought that what the lawyer was saying was going against common sense he'd have the right to ask the lawyer to elucidate on the point he was making and if he though the lawyer still wasn't making and sense he could have the lawyer thrown out of court - which is a technique some criminal lawyer have used to stall for time since in some criminal cases the trail cannot procede if the lawyer defending the accused isn't presant. Hell, I've known at least one lawyer that did something similar in a civil case because her client was blabbering things that were going to disadvantage him so she started blabbering nonsense to cover for him and get herself thrown out of court - which in that case would have resulted in both her and her client being thrown out of court, a preferable outcome to angering the judge and saying things the client would later regret. Another example I could give you is of a lawyer that couldn't get a hold on his client for the court appointed date of the trial and wanted a postponement. The judge wasn't having it so he started yelling and being disrespectful so he could get himself thrown out of court. He actually got fines and escorted out of the court room by bailiffs. The judge was actually mad, she had been a judge for over 20 years and that had been the first time she had had to actually fine someone in her court. The other lawyers weren't amused either since they would now have an angry judge, the guy that got the fine was rather happy since he had protected the interests of his client.

But when it comes to an expert in a given field, the judge has no choice but to trust the expert. He went to law school, the didn't spend 6 years in med school to be able to follow what the coroner is saying. He didn't go to business school, to be able to fallow what the accountant is saying, he didn't become a civil engineer or an arhitect to be able to fallow experts in those professions and so on.

If things were so easy to explain that a juror could grasp them in a few minutes we wouldn't have schools, colleges, universities and so on. The real world isn't modeled on Twitter.

[Nealithi]

Oh I understand specializing. My issue on judges as stated and jurors is you may not use any sense. Just go by what is given. If a lawyer holds up a keyboard and calls it a monitor and that it is responsible for recording thermal images in the room. As a juror you are supposed to just say yes to that. No common sense at all. So why bother? If you spoke to someone like that in regular conversation you would try to correct them. And if that did not work you would walk away as the person was full of it. Now imagine if that same person tries to talk intelligently on a subject you don't know. . .

While I understand what you're trying to say, using an absurd example doesn't really help your point. Things are only made worse by the fact that lawyers do in fact use words in a completely different manner then most people. Because all legal profesional in a country must be able to understand each other, especially in cases of criminal law, they all must use the same definitions, concepts and notions for certain legal phrases and words. While language naturally changes laws and legal professionals might keep to the original usage of a word long after it has been abandoned by the general public.

As for judged and common sense, at least in my country if a judge thought that what the lawyer was saying was going against common sense he'd have the right to ask the lawyer to elucidate on the point he was making and if he though the lawyer still wasn't making and sense he could have the lawyer thrown out of court - which is a technique some criminal lawyer have used to stall for time since in some criminal cases the trail cannot procede if the lawyer defending the accused isn't presant. Hell, I've known at least one lawyer that did something similar in a civil case because her client was blabbering things that were going to disadvantage him so she started blabbering nonsense to cover for him and get herself thrown out of court - which in that case would have resulted in both her and her client being thrown out of court, a preferable outcome to angering the judge and saying things the client would later regret. Another example I could give you is of a lawyer that couldn't get a hold on his client for the court appointed date of the trial and wanted a postponement. The judge wasn't having it so he started yelling and being disrespectful so he could get himself thrown out of court. He actually got fines and escorted out of the court room by bailiffs. The judge was actually mad, she had been a judge for over 20 years and that had been the first time she had had to actually fine someone in her court. The other lawyers weren't amused either since they would now have an angry judge, the guy that got the fine was rather happy since he had protected the interests of his client.

But when it comes to an expert in a given field, the judge has no choice but to trust the expert. He went to law school, the didn't spend 6 years in med school to be able to follow what the coroner is saying. He didn't go to business school, to be able to fallow what the accountant is saying, he didn't become a civil engineer or an arhitect to be able to fallow experts in those professions and so on.

If things were so easy to explain that a juror could grasp them in a few minutes we wouldn't have schools, colleges, universities and so on. The real world isn't modeled on Twitter.

Darn it, you end these with comments that make me want to make a smart alec comment.

That said, I am glad for the rules in your country. They sound well versed. And I use the more ludicrous example so it is easier to convey in this forum without us knowing each other nor our respective fields. What I was alluding to was someone saying something you know is wrong. But you must take it as fact because it is a trial.
As to lawyers talking their own language. Why not have them all speak latin to the jury if the only ones that need to understand what they are saying are other lawyers? Sorry if that seems combative but lawyerese being binding to the common man but the common man has a hard time comprehending it because of how it is written sounds like a deliberate trap.