>the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are likely innocent.
Keep in mind that death penalty cases get a disproportionate level of attention and process and ought to be the least erroneous.
In many lesser cases people are threatened with sentences that are many times more punitive than the average perpetrator receives in order to inspire them to take a plea deal for a sentence that is merely life ruining instead of life ending.
Wrongful convictions in these scenarios are liable to be much higher than the 4% innocent we murder in public.
In America some jurisdictions are corrupt to a legendary degree. Recent years saw footage of both one corrupt cop staging a scene after murdering a citizen and another literally caught on his own body cam planting drugs during traffic stops.
Countless other examples abound and I omit them only for brevity.
Tech like facial recognition, geo fence warrants, and fishing expeditions that begin with search queries are inherently designed to cast a broad net that criminals will increasingly avoid to the degree possible by you know using VPNs, not googling stuff you plan to set on fire, not googling how to whack your wife etc, not bringing your phone to the crime. Whereas criminals will do the minimal work required to avoid scrutiny it will continue to pull in normal people who will be threatened with decades in prison in order to steal mere years of their lives.
Logically exploratory usage of new techniques is liable to be carefully considered to establish useful precedents. Pretending that American cops would plant drugs but wont imprison black folks that happened to walk down an adjacent street in the 3 hour window where we think the rape happened seems disingenuous.
Its like looking at 50s cars through currently informed eyes and saying we need to see twisted bloody metal before we prove that seat belts are necessary.
>the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are likely innocent.
Keep in mind that death penalty cases get a disproportionate level of attention and process and ought to be the least erroneous.
In many lesser cases people are threatened with sentences that are many times more punitive than the average perpetrator receives in order to inspire them to take a plea deal for a sentence that is merely life ruining instead of life ending.
Wrongful convictions in these scenarios are liable to be much higher than the 4% innocent we murder in public.
In America some jurisdictions are corrupt to a legendary degree. Recent years saw footage of both one corrupt cop staging a scene after murdering a citizen and another literally caught on his own body cam planting drugs during traffic stops.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/11/florida-cop...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-south-carolina-shooting-s...
Countless other examples abound and I omit them only for brevity.
Tech like facial recognition, geo fence warrants, and fishing expeditions that begin with search queries are inherently designed to cast a broad net that criminals will increasingly avoid to the degree possible by you know using VPNs, not googling stuff you plan to set on fire, not googling how to whack your wife etc, not bringing your phone to the crime. Whereas criminals will do the minimal work required to avoid scrutiny it will continue to pull in normal people who will be threatened with decades in prison in order to steal mere years of their lives.
Logically exploratory usage of new techniques is liable to be carefully considered to establish useful precedents. Pretending that American cops would plant drugs but wont imprison black folks that happened to walk down an adjacent street in the 3 hour window where we think the rape happened seems disingenuous.
Its like looking at 50s cars through currently informed eyes and saying we need to see twisted bloody metal before we prove that seat belts are necessary.