Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Remember that one still needs proof. My DNA on a victim's clothes does not mean I committed the crime.


Are you willing to trust 12 random schmoes to make that call correctly? Especially in the face of an overzealous prosecutor?


The same process we've used for centuries? You got something better? I'm sure you don't. You are also ignoring that the 12 random schmoes are selected by both sides attorneys and given instructions and facts and can still be overruled by a judge (under circumstances) plus the possibility of appeal.

Your response is very uninformed at best.


The fake-it-'till-you-make-it crime lab "scientist" is worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist


Exactly. I’ve served on two juries and the experiences left me shaking my head. In one case the judge’s instructions were dismissed by a majority of the jury members with a “yeah, but…”.


In principle.

In reality, juries often hold evidence like this (and also-very-unreliable eye witness testimony) in high regard, based on how it's positioned into the narrative.


In reality, juries often hold evidence like this in high regard, based on how it's positioned on CSI:Some-City television.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: