Message from @aguyyouknow
Discord ID: 604414380473450522
But since than it shouldnt be to common
I understand the appeals process, but if the guy is caught on camera or caught at the scene, like the Boston marathon bomber, I think we can say for sure he did it
In that case I say skip the appeals and put him out of his misery
So long as there is no data tampering, then sure.
or if some guys DNA is found inside someone who got raped and murdered
A conviction is supposed to be made beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. Either the appeals process should be available to everyone, or no one. You can't decide to fast-track some executions and not others
We’re not convicting beyond reasonable doubt apparently, according to the statistics
That's why I'm against the death penalty
You wanna know something disgusting? It might actually be practised like this in the US as well. Basically in Germany you can only be taken to court for a crime ones. So there was this guy who got aquitted for murder before DNA testing was a thing and now they found his DNA in the victims clothes but he cant be brought to trial again. So there is someone out there who would be considered a murderer if his case would be dealt with today but he can just walk around freely.
"double jeopardy" in the US
Can't be put on trial for the same crime twice
the thing is he could be brought back if new evidence surfaced, but because the DNA was on old evidence it doesnt count
To be fair as well, DNA testing has a failure rate
sure but he would have been convicted if the DNA testing had been a thing back than
there was a lot of other evidence, just slightly not enough
and Im sure they tested more than once before publishing that story
Ah, yeah that sucks
it definitely sucks when that kind of thing happens, but... I'll always hold to Blackstone's Ratio
"it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer"
There's no easy way to skin the cat that is the death penalty, that's why I'm undecided
if they didn't have sufficient evidence at the time, they didn't have sufficient evidence at the time. It's awful when that kind of thing happens, but...
@aguyyouknow so as long as the wrongful convictions are less than 10% you are okay with it?
...are you trying to be humorous?
no
honest
blackstones ratio
10:1
I dont understand it, even if the evidence is old, if you have new technologies that completely changes the value of the evidence is cant you treat it like new evidence? You definitely got new information out of it.
the idea behind it is the part that's important
I've never seen anyone literally take it as a 10:1 ratio
so it's like "forgive your brother not seven times but seventy-seven times?
the idea never to put an innocent person in jail even if that means letting criminals go
so the ratio is metaphorical
yep
yes
it's just referred to as "blackstone's ratio" because william blackstone is the guy that coined the phrase
it could have said better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished
i know
I believe that's Benjamin Franklin's version of it
it's just not feasible as a policy
But it *is* what informs policy