I've previously written about there was only a 40% chance OJ killed his
ex-wife and Goldman. I've also written about how the arguments on the
Clipper chip wasn't convincing.

It also leads to arguments about how arguments on parallel construction is
not convincing, those arguments pretty much boil down to the government is
being suspiciously secretive and illegally dishonest.

I found the arguments on parallel construction to be more convincing than
the Clipper chip though, but upon further thought, I'm not longer convinced
by current arguments against parallel construction. The defendant still
committed the crime (ignoring selective enforcement), it is just that
classified information is used as hints to find a different set of
evidence. They were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high
bar to meet.

Or is it a very high bar to meet? The ACLU, the great absolutionists of our
time, insist on no death penalty. Because based on the number of people who
were exonerated before ever being executed should have instead been
sentenced to life imprisonment, who if exonerated, would still be released?
Well ignoring that, there is an alarming number of people convicted beyond
a reasonable doubt. Based on some circumstantial evidence here, prior
relationship there, lack of alibi, and having the same blood type (although
thanks to CSI, more exacting and numerous tests are demanded now), and you
have a pretty convincing story (which is all it takes).

Obviously the proper argument is to find that all murderers were
incorrectly convicted and should be retried under stricter procedures.
Everyone bemoans that Matthew Keys was convicted by... a jury. We have
fallen far, far, below our desired standard for "... ten guilty persons
escape than that one innocent suffer".

My argument about parallel construction is different, the defendants should
have access to classified information to prove their innocence if there is
a large scale program by the government to prove guilt using classified
information. It could give an edge to the defendant to find that one
pattern or one bit of evidence that would throw doubt onto the
prosecution's case. Because the defendant is not presumed innocent. If
there is no doubt as to the prosecution's case, the jury will convict, do
not delude yourself otherwise.

It's funny how the status quo stays the same when it benefits the
government, but suddenly we have a FISA Amendment or a Patriot Act

Reply via email to