Man, sorry, this just sounds like you doubling down on not knowing what you’re talking about (For example, in what world has trial law ever been common sense?)
By the haploid genes of christ themself, you cannot say that witness testimony is unreliable while claiming that modern DNA evidence has somehow improved things. It screams that you’ve bought in to the borderline propaganda of modern media, that forensic evidence is in any way reliable. The internet is rife with reporting about how unreliable it is, in fact.
Seriously, unless someone confessed or was caught in the act, they were innocent when convicted? Statiscially most people convicted were innocent? Where in the hell are you getting this? Please, enlighten me, since my digging in wikipedia has failed to find a source to support your position (though the number of articles on trial law in the 1800s is… small, to say the least)
Look, I’m not arguing about the violence of the state or that trial procedure has been (and is) awfully biased, but specifically trial procedure is nothing like (and has never been) as bad as you imply it is/was.
🤔 to my understanding DNA evidence is one of the very few things that is actually reliable when it comes to forensic science. What issues do you have with it?
Unfortunately your understanding, and that of nearly every juror in the US, is wrong. Tainted by the pro-police television narrative, that cops never mess up and that all crimes can be solved with the application of Forensic Science™. The link I provided elaborates further, but one reason from the concerningly long list: DNA testing really is little more than circumstantial evidence - it’s ridiculously easy for your DNA to show up at the scene of a crime you were not involved with. In general, it’s more precise than blood splatter or ballistic analyses, but not nearly by the margin you think.
Yeah okay. Witness testimony is less accurate than chance. Before other forms of evidence, the main evidence used was witness testimony. Therefore, logically, less than half of people convicted were guilty of the crime charged in jury trials.
There’s also physical and circumstantial evidence, not just eye witness. And I don’t think you fully grasp the concept of "logic. “Eye witness” being a highly unreliable source doesn’t make “correct convictions” less likely than a coin toss
You’re talking out your ass and trolling. Go home, peasant
Ah, I think youve misunderstood some numbers. The best stats I have found indicate that ~75% of overturned cases used eyewitness testimony, and 1/3 of those (so ~20% of all) were found to use faulty testimony from two or more eyewitnesses.
Those are a tiny slice of cases, I’m not sure how many total convictions there have been but best numbers on the time period in question is tens of thousands. The court system either modern or historic has some serious fucking problems, an inability to correct its mistakes being one of the more prominent ones. But a 50+% false conviction rate has never been one of them, come on.
It’s nearly impossible to overturn a case, I never brought that up or suggested that.where you got confused is that you haven’t kept up with any scientific research in the last hundred years relating to human memory, especially under stress
Eyewitness testimony is as reliable as lie detectors, ouiji boards, and Dosing rods for fact finding.