The shocking thing is that before video and DNA evidence, pretty much all murders were never actually solved.
Witness testimony has been the cornerstone of most criminal cases in history, but witness testimony has been scientifically proven, repeatedly, to be entirely unreliable in all circumstances. Unless a killer confessed out of nowhere or was caught in the act, statistically they were innocent regardless of whatever twelve untrained yahoos were convinced of. The state, all states, have killed more innocent people with permission from the citizenry than any arbitrary group of civilian criminals in history, included ng all terror groups combined.
Gonna need a couple sources there, buddy. Sounds poetic but, like most poetry, a little bit hyperbolic.
… wikipedia how trials were done in the 1800s? This is, and I can’t stress this enough, common sense.
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.
No they’re right eyewitness testimony has turned out to be shit. In your responses it looks like you go out of your way to miss the entire body of eyewitness experiments.
That wasn’t the point I was addressing, but I appreciate you providing sources!
The unreliability of eyewitness statements isn’t in question, I’ll happily agree that it’s total shit. But, while we’ve only recently quantified just how bad it is, the fact that it’s unreliable is not new information (this is actually at the heart of “beyond reasonable doubt”). For the same reason, nobody’s done the police procedural trope of a “Perp Walk” in years because of how demonstrably terrible it was. Criminal cases have required more than simply eyewitness accounts to establish a case for a very long time, and I wasn’t arguing that. I was pointing out that at no point in history was a (relatively) fair court system so broken that more than half of people convicted were innocent. That’s just ridiculous.
‘Solve’ incorrect
More like ‘we need your opinion on all this evidence we have’
Right?! I’ve always found it odd that the judicial system can’t get anything accomplished without bringing in 12 random Joe Schmoes off the street.
The judicial system can get plenty accomplished without juries. In fact, the number of disputes settled by jury trial has dropped drastically in the last fifty years, especially with the Supreme Court ruling on Brady v. the United States in 1970 that upheld plea bargaining.
The result has been a stronger judiciary that more readily upholds state authority. Instead of a prosecutor proving to a dozen other citizens that you are guilty, a prosecutor needs to persuade you alone that, whether you’re guilty or not, you’ll suffer more if you don’t admit guilt than if you do. That’s a fucked up premise, IMO.
In my experience it’s more like: decide how much money the rich person’s insurance has to give the other rich person because of a small car accident.
Call this phone number OR WE WILL SEND YOU TO JAIL
oh well it’s holiday hours here so call us after 7
Oh well its holiday hours here so no need to report
WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU?
oh well we dropped the case.
Pray you never get selected to serve on a grand jury. They can require you to serve for a full week every month, for up to 4 years (in PA at least). It’s absolutely insane. You do get paid a little more though, I think it’s $40 a day.
You can always request an exemption for financial hardship. But that means that it’s never really a jury of your actual peers.
When I was called in for selection of the grand jury, so many people requested exemptions after hearing the insane requirements, the judge announced that no further exemptions would be granted.