I’m not sure it is all just a ‘lottery’ when it comes to your 10% Neil, at least not here on the continent.
While not an exact corollary, here in the USA recent exonerations by race have proven to be: Black – 71 White – 53 Latino – 12 Other -2 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty Of course, even here the amount of effort and political might required to overturn capital sentencing is well known. This is especially true since the privatization of our prison systems. What is the result?...one seems to be the highest percentage of prisoners in the industrial world. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita The 3% solution: “According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,292,133 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2009 — about 1% of adults in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,933,667 adults at year-end 2009 were on probation or on parole. In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2009 — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population." In addition, there were 86,927 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2007” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States On Oct 4, 7:04 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been reading up on this topic for my novel. Dull stuff. Case > after case leaves you wondering what does go on in courtrooms and > police investigations. I don't think I ever got anyone sent down who > didn't do the crime and in practice didn't feel the way I do reading > the literature - this,of course,may be part of the problem. I did > experience a lot of doubt during investigation, but if I didn't find > clear cut evidence I gave up. > > Most of the reporting in the Knox case has not been on the actual > evidence - my conclusion on that I found is there isn't any and the > forensics were bent. What interests me is why we don't apply > scientific standards in criminal investigation and courtroom procedure > - the obvious answer is the people involved don't have scientific > training or aptitude. Yet in tests we find forensic experts are > heavily biased towards whoever pays them, usually the prosecution > (numerous summaries in New Scientist). Despite CSI, much of the > science in forensics isn't. > > My interest extends to what we find credible about our societies > generally and how we do this. People make fantastic claims such as > 'voting on the economy' - but when tested know nothing about economics > or the economy. Judges in the UK tell you, as a jury member, to note > the demeanor of witnesses, yet science tells us we are useless at this > and chronically biased. The 'evidence' the prosecution was using > against Knox was so pathetic they had no credibility. They have said > they will appeal their appeal court - but what does this say? We are > supposed to accept court judgments and such an appeal sort of says > even the professionals in the system don't. > > We tend to privilege police evidence and expert witnesses - but this > evidence is often poor and much more speculative than claimed. > Sometimes, as in the Nico Bento case, madness takes over - here the > whole courtroom except Nico was suckered into not believing the > evidence of their own eyes. We also had a spate of crazy ritual abuse > trials on both sides of the pond. > > From an academic perspective, much of our public debate is ill- > informed claptrap stuck in Idols exposed 400 years ago. Much of what > happens in our criminal justice system is pretty clear cut - criminals > are pretty stupid (average IQ of those caught 82) and their excuses > poor and easy to disprove. What I suspect is that in ten percent of > cases where there is real doubt you are in real trouble if there is > circumstantial reason to suspect you and you end up in a lottery. and > an investigation system that lines up only the evidence against you. > > We have a case here in which a male nurse has been convicted of > murders through injecting insulin. The case looked OK as he was on > duty when 5 elderly women died of hypoglycemia - but now we are being > told this condition is as high as !0% > naturally in such patients. > > Much public decision-making is based on what we exclude in scientific > reasoning and we still have massive ignorance after nearly 100 years > of universal education. I see little sign we learn from mistakes and > increasing evidence we hide them more than ever under 'learning > lessons' rhetoric.
