forensic files and the death penalty

C

clu

Contributor
Veteran XX
anyone else watch this show? i'm addicted I can keep it on for hours. after seeing a few episodes with people exonerated from death row, I gotta wonder if the death penalty is worth it. the red-blooded American in me says yes - absolutely - the death penalty should be kept for clear-cut capital cases.

however, after seeing some of the shit on this show, in some cases the judicial system is a farce and they've come very close to killing innocent people to keep from admitting to a mistake. furthermore, the appeals process is lengthy and costly and apparently necessary due to how often the cops and prosecutors fuck up. here are some of my favorites:

death penalty exoneration:

season 8 episode 7 - once bitten: this nigger (not really) gets a new trial and the dumbfuck jury convicts him again







season 13 episode 38 - Cold Feet: crazy-assed FAS offender kills his half-sister - only found after he kills a second woman




season 3 episode 8 - deadly formula: this lady gets busted for killing her kid with antifreeze but the kid had a metabolic disorder that produced ethylene glycol-like metabolites in his blood naturally

 
most forensics is educated guesswork at best, and the testimony in court rarely reflects even that guesswork correctly. what's amazing is that is still significantly more meaningful than eyewitness reports.
 
he said she said is the most comical shit ever though and if u dont believe it just watch judge judy criminal court
 
yes that is one other thing I learn from this show. circumstantial evidence covers a wide berth - it is defined as any evidence that requires the jury to draw a conclusion... eyewitness testimony, paper trails, etc can all be very valid evidence that leads to a conviction. it is not always direct or forensic evidence
 
DMAUL said:
most forensics is educated guesswork at best, and the testimony in court rarely reflects even that guesswork correctly. what's amazing is that is still significantly more meaningful than eyewitness reports.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting opinion. What's your take on the Holohoax?
 
DMAUL said:
most forensics is educated guesswork at best, and the testimony in court rarely reflects even that guesswork correctly. what's amazing is that is still significantly more meaningful than eyewitness reports.
Click to expand...

this may be true in bumfuck, US, or in one of the cities where crime labs have come under fire for falsifying results, but they do some pretty incredible shit on this show
 
Holocaust happened, only a fucking moron would believe otherwise. The figures are exaggerated in all likelihood because they always are. Jews are not innocent victims in it.
 
clu said:
this may be true in bumfuck, US, or in one of the cities where crime labs have come under fire for falsifying results, but they do some pretty incredible shit on this show
Click to expand...

I don't think there is widespread malicious behavior by analysts. What I believe, and have seen, is a lack of expertise. Forensic analysts often lack expertise in the field of which they are analyzing. This leads to misinterpretations of the data that they are looking at. The problem is that the position they are in does not give them much room to admit failure, misunderstanding, or the need to consult expertise. You can't present weakness or you'll be out your job.

I've read court testimony from so-called expert computer forensic analysts where basic file system operation was grossly misrepresented with no objection. I've also seen where an extremely poor understanding of statistics is presented--which is another problem, a field where there is a certain probability of error should not have analysts with zero training in statistics.

As for the holocaust, I'm not sure what it being a "hoax" would involve. Were they actually all nice to each other, had some tea, and it is a misunderstanding? Even if the scope of it is completely wrong, I'm not sure what great alternative that proves. Should we apologize to hitler or something?
 
DMAUL said:
I don't think there is widespread malicious behavior by analysts. What I believe, and have seen, is a lack of expertise. Forensic analysts often lack expertise in the field of which they are analyzing. This leads to misinterpretations of the data that they are looking at. The problem is that the position they are in does not give them much room to admit failure, misunderstanding, or the need to consult expertise. You can't present weakness or you'll be out your job.

I've read court testimony from so-called expert computer forensic analysts where basic file system operation was grossly misrepresented with no objection. I've also seen where an extremely poor understanding of statistics is presented--which is another problem, a field where there is a certain probability of error should not have analysts with zero training in statistics.

As for the holocaust, I'm not sure what it being a "hoax" would involve. Were they actually all nice to each other, had some tea, and it is a misunderstanding? Even if the scope of it is completely wrong, I'm not sure what great alternative that proves. Should we apologize to hitler or something?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for whoever gets hired to testify in court but seeing some of these forensic files guys lift fingerprints off hamburger buns is pretty sweet
 
When a surgeon cuts out some skin cancer he needs to cut well around it, taking out some harmless tissue to ensure he doesn't miss any.

When a glass bottle of beer explodes on the filling line, the company tends to remove about 10 bottles each side to ensure the method is effective.

These innocents make the supreme sacrifice. If you were innocent and got the death penalty, we thank you for your contribution. Now climb into the chair and wear the stylish conductive hat.
 
if you factor in appeals, life in prison might be cheaper. plus we could use slave labor or medical testing
 
Can't have 'appeals', that stuff just keep the lawyers in a job.

Crim gets wired up. The jury all have a dial and a button. Each juror sets his dial from NotGuilty all the way up to Crispy. When the judge signals for the verdict they all press their buttons, and boom... result... he walks free, gets a tingle, or sets off the fire alarms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top