zlacker

>>rossan+(OP)
trully unbelievable, i lose faith in thr justice system day by day

>>Clumsy+4t4
The justice system does the best it can with the information it has. It is far from perfect. It makes horrible mistakes all the time. The problem, of course, is improving it without knock-on effects making it worse.

There are huge swaths of people doing the work required to make it better, every day. It's not as easy as turning a dial from "bad" to "good"

>>parl_m+Qz4
No. When it comes to evaluating forensic evidence lawyers are, by training, too process oriented to solve the problems. Ask a prosecutor what the error rate is for fingerprints or DNA evidence and you’ll get a blank stare. They don’t even try to measure it.

>>razeh+NB4
You're telling me no defense lawyer thinks about arguing the evidence is unreliable or are you just saying the prosecution throws everything they can find at their side of the case? The former seems extremely hard to believe (lest you're about to become the greatest defense lawmaker of all time due to wisdom shared in a short HN comment) and the latter seems to be evidence of the system working both well and as designed, not evidence it's badly faulty.

>>zamada+NR4
> latter seems to be evidence of the system working both well and as designed

Prosecutors in America have one goal: close the case. At any cost, close the case. They are not interested in justice. They are not interested in finding the one who actually committed the crime. They are interested in closing the case. If that is “working as designed”, then we need to change the design.

>>TedDoe+XT4
Sure, but the accused should have a lawyer who is screaming about anything that is unreliable.

>>bluGil+4W4
There’s no practical way for a defense lawyer to find out what the error rate is for, say, a state lab. Occasionally organizations can do this, for example the innocence project figured out that the FBI’s hair analysis was bogus for decades (https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on-mic...).