You are right Orn - lottery is too loose. What strikes me having read around for creative purpose is just what people in the system start to do as 'disinterested investigation' - it's frankly child-like. My first murder started as a missing from home and was dismissed as such into my charge by utterly "disinterested" superiors who didn't check anything the murderer said (the mother) or bother to launch a search for the missing children. My last involved evidence that must have been planted (not by cops) and an innocent man arrested an me under suspicion because I was living with his ex-wife (quite why this was thought relevant I've no clue). He told the truth throughout and the actual perpetrators were vile scum. When I did sort it out,my boss told me I should have walked away 'instead of embarrassing one of her best detectives'. It was then I knew the organisation was worth leaving.
On Oct 5, 7:33 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -2http://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... > > 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.
