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

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

Erm, this has always been done, it's nothing new. Lawyers always attack the
validity of evidence and let the jurors know, by putting expert witnesses on
the stand, how reliable each type of evidence is. The credibility of
eyewitnesses is always easy to attack and the jurors might put less weight
on this than say DNA or fingerprint evidence.



>
> 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.
>
> > 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.

Very few belong in court since for something to be considered a crime it has
to be proved that not only did the person commit the crime but that she had
intent. Since practically all rape cases are based on a misunderstanding,
intent is almost impossible to prove and the conviction rates reflect this.
And this isn't even taking into consideration the women who made allegations
because they are malicious, want attention or are just plain irrational.




  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.
>
> > DLK
>
> -- 
> Neil
>