Slashdot Mirror
Study Weighs In On the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony
sciencehabit writes The victim peers across the courtroom, points at a man sitting next to a defense lawyer, and confidently says, "That's him!" Such moments have a powerful sway on jurors who decide the fate of thousands of people every day in criminal cases. But how reliable is eyewitness testimony? A new report concludes that the use of eyewitness accounts need tighter control, and among its recommendations is a call for a more scientific approach to how eyewitnesses identify suspects during the classic police lineup.
This has been known for 20+ years.
The problem is that most states don't allow the adverse party to introduce evidence on the general unreliability of eye-witness testimony.
I think this information is generally well known in law enforcement by now (at least, I hope so). I saw a news documentary on it and it's surprising how poor an eyewitness account can be, especially if handled incorrectly.
Keep spreading awareness:
Documentary Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Documentary Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That was more a documentary on how police take innocent statements and turn them against you to make you look guilty. People should understand that when the police take his exclamation of disbelief and remove the context and emotion and read that back in court as an admission of guilt by the defendant that this is not only used in real life but used frequently and is precisely why you should never ever talk to the police without a lawyer present.
Agreed. The flaw in jury by peers is that the law is written to be incomprehensible, so the jury is forced to defer to the lawyers about what actions could possibly be considered a crime. On a related note, modern juries are never informed of their right of nullification (finding the law to be at fault, rather than a simple guilty or not guilty verdict), they are told repeatedly that their only purpose is to assess the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Coherent laws and a properly educated jury would resolve many of the issues with the justice system in the USA. The only victims would be the legislatures who would have to write better laws or risk the juries striking them down again and again.
We have juries not because they are great, but because the alternative is worse. Sure, if everything goes as it should, a judge or panel of professional jurors would be more accurate than a bunch of novices. But then there is nothing to stop corrupt judges (remember that judge who got bribed to fill up a juvenile for profit prison?).
The jury is there as the final check and balance on the judicial system (deciding guilt or innocence) and also on the legislative branch (jury nullification, declaring innocence because the law itself was wrong).
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways