• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An Interesting Case Showing How Easily One Can Be Falsely Convicted Of A Crime

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
In the news....
A Texas jury found him guilty of murder. A computer algorithm proved his innocence.
Excerpted....
Nearly a decade into his life sentence for murder, Lydell Grant was escorted out of a Texas prison in November with his hands held high, free on bail, all thanks to DNA re-examined by a software program..
Yep.
We get wrong convictions here as well.
Bad verdicts fueled by meager evidence (Suzi Lamplu case) or failed investigations caused by lazy incompetent senior cops (the Bamber's daughter) these cases surface.
That's why the death penalty should be ended, which of course it is in both Michigan and the UK.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You mean physical evidence? Testimony is “real” evidence.
No because it isn't substantial on its own. There is testimonial evidence for which it's role is, or at least should be, to provide support for real presentable evidence.

Testimonies are what many religions do to justify themselves as being legit, accurate, or whatever. Think Salem witch trials.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Eye witness testimony can even shatter legitimate alibis.

We have a witness that claims she saw you on the street outside the victims apartment, even if you have friends that claim you were out of town that weekend. It doesn't have to be a good witness, just one that can throw doubt on a suspects claims.
Add to this the fact that juries will give unwarranted weight to
witnesses based upon personal perception of sincerity & veracity.
But those feelings are unrelated to what the witness actually saw.
And DNA evidence can be unreliable, but with the mantle of being
scientific, it too often goes unquestioned.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yep.
We get wrong convictions here as well.
Bad verdicts fueled by meager evidence (Suzi Lamplu case) or failed investigations caused by lazy incompetent senior cops (the Bamber's daughter) these cases surface.
That's why the death penalty should be ended, which of course it is in both Michigan and the UK.
Aye, the death penalty appeals to my need for vengeance.
But alas, the system is too unreliable to impose an irreversible
punishment. Even torture such as solitary confinement is too harsh.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's why I oppose capital punishment.
It is ONE of the reasons I oppose capital punishment. The other is that I really do believe it to be wrong to kill people -- especially when (as it the case with capital punishment) you have them entirely under your control and can thus no longer claim that it is any sort of self-defense or societal-defense. When you've got them locked down, unable to avoid being killed by you, they are no longer a danger to society and it is now, very clearly, just vengeance.

I don't believe vengeance to be healthy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It is ONE of the reasons I oppose capital punishment. The other is that I really do believe it to be wrong to kill people -- especially when (as it the case with capital punishment) you have them entirely under your control and can thus no longer claim that it is any sort of self-defense or societal-defense. When you've got them locked down, unable to avoid being killed by you, they are no longer a danger to society and it is now, very clearly, just vengeance.

I don't believe vengeance to be healthy.
I'm OK with killing.
But it should be done responsibly & infrequently.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Certainty of guilt of an execution-worthy crime.
That's something we cannot rely upon...the certain part.
Okay, I get that part. And to be honest with you, I think that there are situations in which we can be certain.

And then, here's where we part company -- I still cannot bring myself to support capital punishment because we are really incapable of ascertaining what was going on in the mind of the person that we've just observed doing the unthinkable.

For me, this is something of a philosophical problem. And maybe a bit more than that, because I ask myself, "could I take the part of executioner, could I pull the lever, or push the plunger on the syringe?" And I find, in what is not even philosophical but only personal, that I could not.

And therefore, I could not will the state to do it for me.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Unreasonable? Hardly.
What freaks me out is that my phone and car record my every move, and can pinpoint me at any moment; my every purchase and google search is recorded, and that the audio and/or video on my computer, TV, and phone can be accessed by third parties without my knowing I'm being observed. :eek:

I think about things like this, and then I wonder, who would be interested in spying on little old me? I don't think there's any legitimate national security purpose; I think the government is filled with a lot of voyeurs and pervs. They've got naked pictures of all of us.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
For example, in 2007 a girl named Meredith Kercher was assassinated in Perugia and and an American girl ( her flatmate) was convicted with the crime, together with her boyfriend ( on the basis of mere conjectures formulated by a not that normal district attorney, imho).

This is what Amanda Knox went through, the series of trials, and the judgments (or verdicts, which in Italy are called sentences)

Court of Assizes ( Perugia) : Amanda sentenced to jail ---> Appeal

Court of Assizes of Appeal ( Perugia) : Amanda acquitted ---> Appeal to Cassation

Court of Cassation (Italy SC, Rome): the Court nullifies the verdict of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and renvoys the trial to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence

Court of Assizes of Appeal ( Florence): Amanda sentenced to jail again ---> Appeal to Cassation

Court of Cassation: definitively acquits Amanda, nullifying the previous judgments.


Well...I do think that innocent people can fall victims of mentally instable procurators who have too much power within a judicial district (Procura in Italian).

But with this 3 degrees system justice can be made, at times




 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Okay, I get that part. And to be honest with you, I think that there are situations in which we can be certain.
We just can't trust the justice system to discern between absolutely certain & pretty darn sure.
And then, here's where we part company -- I still cannot bring myself to support capital punishment because we are really incapable of ascertaining what was going on in the mind of the person that we've just observed doing the unthinkable.
I see it as more about the crime committed than the state of mind.
For me, this is something of a philosophical problem. And maybe a bit more than that, because I ask myself, "could I take the part of executioner, could I pull the lever, or push the plunger on the syringe?" And I find, in what is not even philosophical but only personal, that I could not.

And therefore, I could not will the state to do it for me.
You have a lever to pull?
Hold my beer.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
For example, in 2007 a girl named Meredith Kercher was assassinated in Perugia and and an American girl ( her flatmate) was convicted with the crime, together with her boyfriend ( on the basis of mere conjectures formulated by a not that normal district attorney, imho).

This is what Amanda Knox went through, the series of trials, and the judgments (or verdicts, which in Italy are called sentences)

Court of Assizes ( Perugia) : Amanda sentenced to jail ---> Appeal

Court of Assizes of Appeal ( Perugia) : Amanda acquitted ---> Appeal to Cassation

Court of Cassation (Italy SC, Rome): the Court nullifies the verdict of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia and renvoys the trial to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence

Court of Assizes of Appeal ( Florence): Amanda sentenced to jail again ---> Appeal to Cassation

Court of Cassation: definitively acquits Amanda, nullifying the previous judgments.


Well...I do think that innocent people can fall victims of mentally instable procurators who have too much power within a judicial district (Procura in Italian).

But with this 3 degrees system justice can be made, at times


Do I think our system needs to be reformed?

Absolutely. Procurators must not have all that power...because they are not gods...and by the way, Amanda was lucky because this attorney defended her...
Because the judging judiciary hangs on procurators ' word too much

 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think about things like this, and then I wonder, who would be interested in spying on little old me? I don't think there's any legitimate national security purpose; I think the government is filled with a lot of voyeurs and pervs. They've got naked pictures of all of us.
I worry we might be blackmailed, or some group of us might become politically inconvenient or, alternatively, convenient -- as scape goats.
Power blocs form. Governments change. It happens over and over.
It can happen here....
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
For me, this is something of a philosophical problem. And maybe a bit more than that, because I ask myself, "could I take the part of executioner, could I pull the lever, or push the plunger on the syringe?" And I find, in what is not even philosophical but only personal, that I could not.

And therefore, I could not will the state to do it for me.
Philosophically it is, if killing is wrong, capital punishment is wrong.
Judicially, if people have an unalienable right to life (which US citizens don't have but should *), unalienable means that that right can't be taken away by a judge and jury and it also can't be wavered.

*The "unalienable right to life" is in the Declaration of Independence but not formalized in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I worry we might be blackmailed, or some group of us might become politically inconvenient or, alternatively, convenient -- as scape goats.
Power blocs form. Governments change. It happens over and over.
It can happen here....

I suppose anything is possible, although it may be one reason why the pool of political candidates is of such low quality. I think of the cases of all those recently outed over something they posted or did in the past.
 
Top