Neil deGrasse Tyson Beats The Legal System! [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in Misc

Is there anything this man can"t do? Let"s just let him run in 2016--someone give him a party.
There are 34 comments:
Male 7,123
OldOllie,

You are right about there being only direct (i.e. eye-witness) or circumstantial evidence. But as circumstantial evidence includes fingerprints, DNA, ballistics and other forensic evidence then circumstantial evidence carries far more weight.

Conviction on eye-witness evidence alone is notoriously unsafe, but sufficient circumstantial evidence (while not perfect) can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You used to hear on TV shows `There are no witnesses, they only have circumstantial evidence.` as though that meant the cops had nothing much. But that could include finding the victim`s body in your freezer, their blood on your clothes and in your hair, your fingerprints around their throat, your skin under their fingernails, a bullet from your gun in their skull, a hand-written list of `How I plan to kill X` in your journal and your ad on Craigslist. All circumstantial, but you`re going down.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
FYI, there are only 2 kinds of evidence: eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. It usually requires a combination of both to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW, I always get out of jury duty by telling them about the time a cop committed perjury to convict me of a traffic violation. I`ve never been picked.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"slightly off-topic, but a better way to get out of jury duty is to show up to court in a Star Fleet uniform. google it; it happened in federal court in Little Rock several years ago."

Actually, that woman served as an alternate on the Whitewater jury in her uniform just fine. Well, until she broke the media gag rule because she couldn`t resist talking to them about Star Trek. I happened to watch a doc film about Trekkies last night and she was a big part of it. Every day she showed up for court there were paparazzi waiting for her to see if she would still wear her uniform. She also wore her uniform to work at Sir Speedy and everyone there had to call her "Commander". Her bosses said she was odd but a good sort of odd that made her care about doing a good job. So that made her a good worker and A-ok with them.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Convicting some one based only on eyewitness testimony is like believing in a story just because some one wrote it in a book. Repeatable empirical evidence is required for something to be scientific, it should be required for a conviction as well.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
slightly off-topic, but a better way to get out of jury duty is to show up to court in a Star Fleet uniform. google it; it happened in federal court in Little Rock several years ago.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Anecdotally, I identified the kid that stole my bicycle from me when I was 14 and they found it in his friends garage, disassembled.

So no, eyewitness evidence is not as unreliable as you may think, all the time."

That`s pretty much the point, though. You may be a good eyewitness, but the next person might not be. If it falls on the lawyer to prove whether a person`s testimony is accurate, you have to keep in mind that the lawyer`s job is to ask questions that make his/her side appear to be correct, not to necessarily get the complete truth from a witness.
0
Reply
Male 38,511

Eyewitness` are less reliable than lie detectors, which are not admissable.
There`s a wealth of studies out there on the topic and they all show the same thing, that a variety of other influences make eyewitnesses incredably inacurate. Here`s one link.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
brianlance: I understand that a person`s memory isn`t always 100% accurate, but that`s what cross-examination by a lawyer is for, to find out any inconsistencies. Also, not everyone is as oblivious to their surroundings or the people they meet.

Anecdotally, I identified the kid that stole my bicycle from me when I was 14 and they found it in his friends garage, disassembled.

So no, eyewitness evidence is not as unreliable as you may think, all the time.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I submit Libertarian.
0
Reply
Male 227
Genius! Thanks Neil, I have to answer a jury summons soon. Have served thrice prior, feel I deserve 1 sit out.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Imperical evidence regarding the unreliability of eyewitness testimony can be found at the Innocence Project`s website.
0
Reply
Male 886
I had a capias out for me due to a forgotten ticket, was called for jury duty. I served on the jury for a bank robbery case while being wanted myself (stupid ticket that was dropped later).

Wierd.
0
Reply
Male 139
@CrakrJak: This is what`s wrong with eyewitness testimony: The Misinformation Effect
0
Reply
Male 3,612
>What is so wrong with `eyewitness testimony`?<

When my ex-wife work at the police education center. She would sign in all the cop before class. The during the class she would walk in an interrupt the teacher and hand him some papers and leave. Five min later the teacher would ask the cops in his class to write out a description of what she looked like. Most of the cops could not even though they seen her twice.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"God help me if my fate is to be decided by 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Jury duty is interesting. You should try it.
0
Reply
Male 213
God help me if my fate is to be decided by 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Eyewitness testimony worked pretty well in the Salem Witch Trials.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Gerry1of1: Oh bravo sir. Bravo.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
CrakrJak: Because human memory is NOT reliable, and are easily influenced by later input. If you want I can dig up some papers on it.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
What is so wrong with `eyewitness testimony`?

Seriously, If several people saw someone shoot and kill another person and that`s all the evidence the cops have, then why not use it?

0
Reply
Male 4,431
turdburglar, it`s not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it`s "beyond a reasonable doubt". There`s a pretty significant difference there. And while I agree that it`s extremely important that there be good, solid evidence, sometimes there`s not HD video of the crime with copious amounts of DNA strewn about. In those cases, sometimes we have to look at all of the evidence.

Casey Anthony, for example. It`s not clear that she killed Caylee in the 1st degree (DA`s mistake #1), but, evidence *does* suggest that she was the caregiver at the time of Caylee`s death, even without an HD video or DNA, and that she was interested in killing without being found liable.

It`s important to realize why humans sit juries rather than computers. If it was just and only about facts and beyond all doubt, with no "reasonable" thrown in, we could populate juries with computers in every case. I`m not about convicting the innocent. At all. But not every case is CSI.
0
Reply
Male 878
The US legal system has an insatiable need for jurors meaning that you get called for duty every couple of years. This leads to any intelligent person with an inclination to know all the dodges for getting out of it. I know many people in England who have never been called to duty their whole life, if it happened would consider it an honor to serve.
0
Reply
Male 7,775
@SminkyPinky: I thought that was a given for I-A-B readers
0
Reply
Female 233
I`m lucky, I`m not actually allowed to do jury duty. I`m not a fellon, I`m a registered mental.
0
Reply
Male 3,475
I always get out of jury duty by saying that I am a care giver to my aging relative.
0
Reply
Male 38,511

@ carmium - sorry you got a boring trial. My last time on jury was a sex trail! WooHoo! All puns aside, it was a hung jury.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
When I was chosen, the prosecutor AND defense both told us this guy who knifed his roomie to death in the tub was nuts and shouldn`t got to jail. He was a medical student from Poland, and in the jury room we wondered if he wouldn`t know just how to act nuts, but we did what we were told and rubber-stamped the decision. Why it even came to trial is beyond me.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@turdburglar
The standard has never been "beyond a shadow of a doubt" except sometimes in death penalty cases. The legal standard in all criminal cases is "beyond a [quote]reasonable[/quote] doubt".

@psychoti
Shot an unarmed man 7 times? Even after he was down? Incompetent defense or not, sounds like he got what he deserved.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I made 40 dollars last time I did Jury duty.
0
Reply
Male 198
I had jury duty earlier this year for a murder case. They did not ask us a question along these lines, and that makes me question if the prosecution had any sort of case for the one Tyson got summoned.

In the case I served as juror on the defendant tried to claim self-defense when he shot an unarmed man to death (7 times, at least one of which while the victim was on the ground prone and he stood over him) but the defense was woefully incompetent. He was convicted of murder in the first degree and plans to appeal. I sincerely hope he gets a new defense attorney because that trial just didn`t seem fair.
0
Reply
Male 38,511

@ turd - it`s the jury screening process. Both sides get to eliminate Xnumber of jurors from the pool. Obviously a prosecutor would not want someone who was swayed only with fact.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

I`ve never served jury duty. They would hate me. I would need some solid evidence to convict.

What ever happened to "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? It seems they convict people all the time without solid evidence. Why did they send him and the others home? If the prosecutor doesn`t get a guilty vote they just send them home?
0
Reply
Male 38,511

I like jury duty, but no, eyewitness testimony is completely unrealiable. It`s been proven over and over, but it`s good for emotionally swaying a jury when a prosecutor doesn`t have facts.
0
Reply
Male 20,196
Link: Neil deGrasse Tyson Beats The Legal System! [Pic] [Rate Link] - Is there anything this man can`t do? Let`s just let him run in 2016--someone give him a party.
0
Reply