let's talk about lookalikes

S

smallStops

Always something interesting coming from the USA :

How comes, you, Americans, get people jailed for 17 years with no hard proofs ( dna, etc)?

 
smallStops said:
Always something interesting coming from the USA :

How comes, you, Americans, get people jailed for 17 years with no hard proofs ( dna, etc)?

More...

Yes, that's an American issue. Why don't you do some simple math. Take the number of individuals incarcerated annually, and take the number incarcerated that were later proven innocent. Quadruple it to account for unknown errors that might yet be uncovered. Divide and find the overall error rate.

If it's over 1/100th of a percent, please wake me up.
 
Has nothing to do with lookalikes and everything to do with the practice of convicting people purely based on mugshots and lineup identifications. And that does not exist in most other countries. Not trying to make a big story out of it but it certainly is a very suboptimal practice and indeed lead and still leads to significant error rates to warrant a think over.

By the way, let's hear you after 17 years behind bars because you have been locked away based on a 1/100th of a percent error. "beyond reasonable doubt" newly defined...

Tsing Tao said:
Yes, that's an American issue. Why don't you do some simple math. Take the number of individuals incarcerated annually, and take the number incarcerated that were later proven innocent. Quadruple it to account for unknown errors that might yet be uncovered. Divide and find the overall error rate.

If it's over 1/100th of a percent, please wake me up.
More...
 
dumpdapump said:
Has nothing to do with lookalikes and everything to do with the practice of convicting people purely based on mugshots and lineup identifications. And that does not exist in most other countries. Not trying to make a big story out of it but it certainly is a very suboptimal practice and indeed lead and still leads to significant error rates to warrant a think over.

By the way, let's hear you after 17 years behind bars because you have been locked away based on a 1/100th of a percent error. "beyond reasonable doubt" newly defined...
More...

zzzzz.....

It's not just about mugshots. They don't simply convict people based solely on the mugshot.

Two eye witnesses claimed to see him commit the crime. Now, you can argue that there was no fingerprints or DNA. Jones had an alibi. Sounds like a really bad public defender.

Also, Jones's sentence included time for four previous and unrelated offenses which he did commit.
 
Last edited:
in this case they did, and in some others they did as well. And that is a problem, regardless of rarity of occurrence.

Tsing Tao said:
zzzzz.....

It's not just about mugshots. They don't simply convict people based solely on the mugshot.

Two eye witnesses claimed to see him commit the crime. Now, you can argue that there was no fingerprints or DNA. Jones had an alibi. Sounds like a really bad public defender.

Also, Jones's sentence included time for four previous and unrelated offenses which he did commit.
More...
 
dumpdapump said:
in this case they did, and in some others they did as well. And that is a problem, regardless of rarity of occurrence.
More...

Again, he received time for four prior offenses as well. It's not as clear cut as you're making it out. Do I believe the court committed an error? Yep. But focus on that court and that error to ensure the practice doesn't reoccur. Don't imply the country's justice system is faulty because of the actions of a tiny minute percentage of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top