Identification Evidence was: Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

"Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

> My suggestion would be that identification evidence be given less weight.
> There's a lot to indicate that it's not terrifically reliable.

I see things the same way.

While in most criminal cases identification by the pursuer or a witness is
regarded as very (or even the most) important evidence, it is undeniably
also one of the least reliable.

Then again, what type of evidence are we going to replace it with? What
category of evidence deserves the predicate "most important"? What type of
evidence should be regarded as reliable and crucial *and* is habitually
readily available? Maybe a system of points would be helpful (where for
example witness identification gets 2 points and DNA identification gets 8
points, and so on).

When you write off or diminish the significance of a specific category of
evidence, it's of course understandable that even more criminals are going
to get away with it, but perhaps that is the price we need to pay to ensure
that as few people as possible are innocently convicted.

DLK

http://www.mybluenotes.tk

I've got a strong urge to fly.
But I got nowhere to fly to.
-- Roger Waters (Pink Floyd)


> -- 
> Neil
>