| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2011 12:28:44 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Here's something that's been bugging the crap out of me since this verdict... |
I totally agree, Ken! Commit a murder and lets try you as the guinea pig.
:)
Since I'm not willing to be the "pig", I'm willing to take the jury's verdict. Odd.. since I'm a very left-winger... but still... I'd much rather the murdering, lying mother go free than to put myself in her place and know that I'm innocent... and to be put to death wrongly.
So... sue me. :)
(p.s. You know I love you... ) |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 12:39:43 AM · #102 |
Come to think of it, I doubt people will ever accept computers making decisions for us. Too Terminator-esque. Does anyone agree? Anyone?
Lydia: I think you missed my point - the fact is that we DO have innocent people being convicted, so it's not a question of one over the other - if it was, then we would be in agreement and the expression would be valid. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 12:43:06 AM · #103 |
You disagree that the chances of you being innocent and being set free are less now than what you propose, Ken?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2011 12:47:17 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I also understand the essence of double jeopardy. |
Obviously not.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2011 12:47:41 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
You disagree that the chances of you being innocent and being set free are less now than what you propose, Ken? |
Don't know. I can imagine if logic and statistical analysis were applied rather than 12 strangers looking at me and thinking "he just looks guilty as hell" that yes, I would have a better chance. Of course the devil is in the details as I mentioned originally - assigning values to direct and indirect evidence, etc. I'm not really advocating any of these ideas necessarily, just interested in seeing them discussed and debated. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 12:50:24 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
But, since she has not much (if any) monetary assets, having lived off of her parents her whole life, the civil courts' outcome will not mean much at all, in my opinion.
She's won every battle that she cares about. |
It's not the assets she has now, though she's been paid a hundred thousand or so for publishing rights to some family photos, it's the assets she will have from interview fees, book deals etc. Those would be the assets at risk from a civil trial, though who's going to sue her? |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 01:01:05 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
You disagree that the chances of you being innocent and being set free are less now than what you propose, Ken? |
Don't know. I can imagine if logic and statistical analysis were applied rather than 12 strangers looking at me and thinking "he just looks guilty as hell" that yes, I would have a better chance. Of course the devil is in the details as I mentioned originally - assigning values to direct and indirect evidence, etc. I'm not really advocating any of these ideas necessarily, just interested in seeing them discussed and debated. |
A computer can't make a decision, all it can do is math. No matter how much you program it, all it is doing is working calculations.
I would never, ever leave my life up to a computer to decide my fate. I'll take the imperfect humans over a calculator. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 01:26:02 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
You disagree that the chances of you being innocent and being set free are less now than what you propose, Ken? |
Don't know. I can imagine if logic and statistical analysis were applied rather than 12 strangers looking at me and thinking "he just looks guilty as hell" that yes, I would have a better chance. Of course the devil is in the details as I mentioned originally - assigning values to direct and indirect evidence, etc. I'm not really advocating any of these ideas necessarily, just interested in seeing them discussed and debated. |
A computer can't make a decision, all it can do is math. No matter how much you program it, all it is doing is working calculations.
I would never, ever leave my life up to a computer to decide my fate. I'll take the imperfect humans over a calculator. |
Yeah, that's the tact most people take because it just sounds better. Keep these things in mind: human jurors already do take statistics into evidence ("the chances of this DNA belonging to someone other than the defendant are one in 100,000", etc.) I am talking about having the software do the statistical analysis of all evidence. Again, the key is in who/how the evidence is weighted. Maybe a jury could assign values to the evidence. We have had many juries decide guilt or innocence in spite of overwhelming evidence that would contradict their verdict - in some cases the judge has set aside their verdict because it flies in the face of the evidence. A computer program would not care that you are black or that you have a high priced lawyer or that you dress like Mother Theresa. Juries are affected by things that have no bearing on guilt or innocence. Assuming the right combination of weighted values could be applied to a program, what makes you think humans can be more right about someone's guilt or innocence? Also, I would not replace the jury or judge for the sentencing phase - that is where the human factor has more of a role, I think.
In all honesty, I am fine with our jury system, but not so fine with people thinking it doesn't convict innocent people in addition to (NOT instead of) releasing guilty people. It's flawed in many ways that I don't think can be avoided without completely rethinking it.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2011 07:38:48 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
You disagree that the chances of you being innocent and being set free are less now than what you propose, Ken? |
Don't know. I can imagine if logic and statistical analysis were applied rather than 12 strangers looking at me and thinking "he just looks guilty as hell" that yes, I would have a better chance. Of course the devil is in the details as I mentioned originally - assigning values to direct and indirect evidence, etc. I'm not really advocating any of these ideas necessarily, just interested in seeing them discussed and debated. |
A computer can't make a decision, all it can do is math. No matter how much you program it, all it is doing is working calculations.
I would never, ever leave my life up to a computer to decide my fate. I'll take the imperfect humans over a calculator. |
Yeah, that's the tact most people take because it just sounds better. Keep these things in mind: human jurors already do take statistics into evidence ("the chances of this DNA belonging to someone other than the defendant are one in 100,000", etc.) I am talking about having the software do the statistical analysis of all evidence. Again, the key is in who/how the evidence is weighted. Maybe a jury could assign values to the evidence. We have had many juries decide guilt or innocence in spite of overwhelming evidence that would contradict their verdict - in some cases the judge has set aside their verdict because it flies in the face of the evidence. A computer program would not care that you are black or that you have a high priced lawyer or that you dress like Mother Theresa. Juries are affected by things that have no bearing on guilt or innocence. Assuming the right combination of weighted values could be applied to a program, what makes you think humans can be more right about someone's guilt or innocence? Also, I would not replace the jury or judge for the sentencing phase - that is where the human factor has more of a role, I think.
In all honesty, I am fine with our jury system, but not so fine with people thinking it doesn't convict innocent people in addition to (NOT instead of) releasing guilty people. It's flawed in many ways that I don't think can be avoided without completely rethinking it. |
I think in cases where all the evidence is circumstantial, way more innocent people are convicted than guilty people set free. I understand your point and pretty much agree with it. If you compare circumstantial evidence between this case & others in the news recently, you'll see most were convicted on less than what was presented here. The plan facts are, sometimes there are no facts. There have been many murders committed where the murderer was too smart to leave any evidence. Hell, we all watch NCIS & CSI Miami, etc. I'm sure most people know how to not leave evidence. I'll relate a little story for you... my aunt was married to a nutbag. He beat the living crap out of her, many times. She was too afraid to leave him. His brother seemed like a nice guy though, he was the butcher at the local supermarket, had a wife, two kids, and his mother lived with them. One day, his wife went missing. He didn't report her missing for about a month, and when he did no one (police) took it seriously. Everyone figured she left him. He didn't seem to care. About 6 months later while the state was dredging a local creek, up floated a suitcase with a chain attached to it. Inside were cut up body parts. I don't remember what exactly it was now, but something identified the body parts as hers. They came back to the house with some luminol & lit the place up. Yep, he killed his wife, butchered her like a cow, put her in a suitcase attached to a chain with a cinderblock and dumped her in the Pennsauken Creek. It turned out she wasn't the first person he had killed and gotten away with it too. Anyway, even back then, he knew, no evidence, no crime. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 01:13:55 PM · #110 |
| And in 6 more days...she's out. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 01:17:23 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
...no evidence, no crime. |
*taking notes* ;-) j/k
Sorry to hear that about your aunt. Most people can at least take solace in knowing there is a higher judgment coming. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 02:00:59 PM · #112 |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 02:26:53 PM · #113 |
Wow, if that juror is indicative of the rest of them and of the direction of the deliberations they had, no wonder our system is, as I said before, a crap shoot. What a tool. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 02:51:48 PM · #114 |
| Better C.A. goes free than this: Wrong man in prison for 27 years |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 04:23:54 PM · #115 |
Well, I certainly liked Judge Perry's style far more than Judge Ito.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2011 04:36:12 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Kelli:
...no evidence, no crime. |
*taking notes* ;-) j/k
Sorry to hear that about your aunt. Most people can at least take solace in knowing there is a higher judgment coming. |
Oh, it wasn't my aunt that was killed, it was her sister-in-law. As a matter of fact, that's what finally opened her eyes and made her leave her husband. Just in case murder ran in the family. Ya know? |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 04:43:15 PM · #117 |
I have a dear friend that spent 15 years in federal prison for a murder she did not commit. There was no evidence tying her to the crime, at all, but she took the fall for it. As a matter of fact, while she was serving, the DA that prosecuted her case died, and it got the attention of the next DA for some reason. As he looked into the case, court transcripts, etc., he realized this woman should have never been found guilty, much less sentenced. (One tidbit the jury was not allowed to hear -- the DA told all witnesses that if they came to NC from OH to testify that Donna was in Ohio at the time of the murder, they would be arrested. Or that the DA gave the primary witness a color TV and a job at the sheriff's department, despite being a felon, in exchange for his testimony.)
She was finally exonerated if she would plead guilty to a misdemeanor and get credit for time served. In essence, she served 15 years for what should have been a court fine and some community service. Aside from the emotional and mental repercussions of this imprisonment, she is just now (12 years later) able to be moving on with her life. It still haunts her daily.
My point is, I have no anger with the jurors. They took the information they had, put it on the framework they had to work with, and delivered the verdict they did. My beef is with the prosecutors. Did they *really* think they could get a Murder I verdict with the evidence they seemed to have? A couple of years ago, a state trooper was shot near where I live. They had audio AND video evidence of the shooting and they had the defendant's testimony that he did shoot Trooper Blanton. They were still hesitant to go after Murder I.
Apples to oranges I know, but if all your evidence is circumstantial, and you can't answer basic questions, you are going to have a difficult time getting a conviction.
What is going to interesting to me is that there is a case in NC right now with strong similarities -- a child goes missing, parents don't report, stepmom lies to the police about it, remains found, etc. Hopefully, those prosecuting the Zahra Baker case will learn something from this one and fix it before it goes to court. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 07:09:53 PM · #118 |
Except that it was the SAME system that accomplished both. |
|
|
|
07/07/2011 07:37:02 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
You disagree that the chances of you being innocent and being set free are less now than what you propose, Ken? |
Don't know. I can imagine if logic and statistical analysis were applied rather than 12 strangers looking at me and thinking "he just looks guilty as hell" that yes, I would have a better chance. Of course the devil is in the details as I mentioned originally - assigning values to direct and indirect evidence, etc. I'm not really advocating any of these ideas necessarily, just interested in seeing them discussed and debated. |
A computer can't make a decision, all it can do is math. No matter how much you program it, all it is doing is working calculations.
I would never, ever leave my life up to a computer to decide my fate. I'll take the imperfect humans over a calculator. |
Yeah, that's the tact most people take because it just sounds better. Keep these things in mind: human jurors already do takesomeone's guilt or innocence? Also, I would not replace the jury or judge for the sentenc statistics into evidence ("the chances of this DNA belonging to someone other than the defendant are one in 100,000", etc.) I am talking about having the software do the statistical analysis of all evidence. Again, the key is in who/how the evidence is weighted. Maybe a jury could assign values to the evidence. We have had many juries decide guilt or innocence in spite of overwhelming evidence that would contradict their verdict - in some cases the judge has set aside their verdict because it flies in the face of the evidence. A computer program would not care that you are black or that you have a high priced lawyer or that you dress like Mother Theresa. Juries are affected by things that have no bearing on guilt or innocence. Assuming the right combination of weighted values could be applied to a program, what makes you think humans can be more right about ing phase - that is where the human factor has more of a role, I think.
In all honesty, I am fine with our jury system, but not so fine with people thinking it doesn't convict innocent people in addition to (NOT instead of) releasing guilty people. It's flawed in many ways that I don't think can be avoided without completely rethinking it. |
It's not about sounding better.
Trying a criminal case isn't about applying statistical analysis. And it's not just juries that screw up, judges, lawyers, police, witnesses, experts. Any one of those parties can screw up and send an innocent person to jail.
[quote]Assuming the right combination of weighted values could be applied to a program, what makes you think humans can be more right about someone's guilt or innocence?[/quote]
Who determines what is the right combination? The prosecution, the defense? If the party that programs the computer is biased, it doesn't work. If the person who collects the statistics is biased, it doesn't work. If there isn't enough data, innocent people go to jail and guilty people go free until there is enough data. If either lawyer figures out how to game the system, it breaks.
There are many failure modes in either system, but I trust people to mostly do the right thing, most of the time. And when they don't, that's why appeals are built into the system.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 12:10:08 PM EDT.
