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

"Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Lee Kollberg <[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?
>
> Why does it have to be replaced?

Good point. It doesn't need a replacement (even if it would be kind of sad
that even more criminals won't get caught because of the fact that we
diminish the importance of eye witness evidence).

> > What category of evidence deserves the predicate "most important"?
>
> It's usually the case that the sum total of evidence is considered.  i'm
> not suggesting that id evidence be dismissed, but it clearly isn't enough
> by itself - however, it seems to be a tendency of people (ie juries) to
> regard it as unequivocal.  It's not.

You're right.

> > 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).
>
> Personally, i don't like the sound of that.  If that were the case we
> could do away with juries altogether, and try defendants by abacus.

Juries deal (or should deal) with the fine distinction of what is presented
as evidence, so they (juries) won't become a surplus to requirements for
some time yet. For me it's often the nuances of the evidence that can shed
some light on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Therefore the points
system should be only regarded as backing to come to a decision.

> > 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.
>
> i've said it before, and as unfortunate as it is, a lot of rape cases
> have no place in court.  It is in the nature of the crime that many, even
> genuine cases do not provide the necessary objective evidence for a
> conviction to be (honestly and beyond reasonable doubt) possible:  and
> lowering the standard of proof required, to 'address' this situation, is
> not acceptable.  It cannot be fairly addressed - it's just too bad.  The
> alternative is, imo, far worse.

I agree, I guess. Still I cannot forget about my friend who was raped and
consequently went through an awful ordeal to get her assailant convicted,
without any result (by lack of evidence). You could argue that the alleged
rapist perhaps wasn't guilty, except I *know* he was guilty (and believe me,
this is not 'an idea', I just *know* it). Given the fact that my friend is
now dead and her parents and her friends also 'know' who has raped her, it's
not easy to let the 'this is the best possible result' approach make sound
reasonable to them (or to me).

I also realize that personal stories don't matter much in a line of
reasoning, but it's truly hard to forget about them, even in theoretical
discussions.

DLK

http://www.mybluenotes.tk

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


>
> > DLK
>
> -- 
> Neil
>