a court of law has nothing to do with truth... OJ still walks free
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against OJ.
ruveyn
Which is exactly my point... The court system only exists to make facts fit a scenario outlined by the prosecution. In many cases, this has nothing to do with truth.
There are many documented cases of the guilty going free and people being exonerated later.
It sounds like you are describing burden of proof, which is a process of the court system, dependent on evidence, which does not always provide a verdict that reflects what actually happened, depending on the credibility of the evidence and the adjudicative entity before which the evidence is presented.
The court system allows the prosecution the ability to attempt to provide credible evidence/facts to fit the scenario, in hopes that they will be judged accordingly, but the court system can do nothing to make that evidence/facts fit a scenario outlined by the prosecution, if those facts/evidence are not judged as credible or significant to the prosecution of the case.
There are no guarantees that the court system as it is designed will arrive at the truth of what actually happened, in a case presented, but determining the "truth" of what actually happened through the presentation of evidence judged as credible/not credible, is a goal of the court system. Part, of the reason why an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is part of the process.
While it is a fact that the truth is not always arrived at through the court system, it is a fact that truth plays a part in the way the courts system is designed, as there is a penalty for perjury.
Courts exist to do justice, to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law. They exist so that the equality of individuals and the government is reality rather than empty rhetoric.
It not a perfect system, but it least in the US, it is continuously redefined, with what are understood as rational guidelines.
In application, a party to a controversy must convince the adjudicative entity (court, jury, arbitrator, administrative law judge) to rule in its favor. It does this by presenting evidence that it believes supports its position. The party typically presents evidence to support each element of the claim or defense it proffers. How much weight and credibility to afford each item of evidence is up to the adjudicative entity before which the evidence is presented
Joined: Feb 25, 2012 Age: 39 Posts: 788 Location: New Orleans, LA
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject:
aghogday wrote:
There are no guarantees that the court system as it is designed will arrive at the truth of what actually happened, in a case presented, but determining the "truth" of what actually happened through the presentation of evidence judged as credible/not credible, is a goal of the court system.
a court of law has nothing to do with truth... OJ still walks free
Exceptions do not necessarily disprove the rule. Every system we have is prone to human mistakes. The fact that the system fails sometimes doesn't mean it's purpose "has nothing to do with truth." Though it is true that reality doesn't always match stated altruism.
It's what we've got though, and most of us would prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Information necessary for this line of argument is covered in this video.
Most court cases involve very little forensic evidence. Most of the information used in these cases is Eyewitness testimony, which is based on the faulty machinery of the brain. The cases are built on the testimony of people, not fact, but the subjective reality that the witnesses present to the court.
Truth: a verified or indisputable fact. Without forensic evidence, video or the like... there is none of that...
Conclusion, The court system is based on words, not truth.
The court system is designed for the ability to provide evidence that can be judged as credible/non-credible/verified through testimony/physical evidence, for a judgement of support or non-support of the case presented by the defense or the prosecution.
The court system is designed based on a logical process to arrive at the truth (verification of facts/evidence), but it is only as effective as the evidence and human beings that are part of that process. The article you provided presents evidence human memory is fallible, however it does not prevent a jury from arriving at a proper verdict based on verified facts/truth.
A court can't guarantee that facts will be properly verified by fallible human beings, but it provides the best avenue we have for that result. 2 to 3 percent of homicide defendents are exonerated, likely in part, because of the fallibility of human memory, but overall the system works pretty well; particularly in comparison to some other countries.
Joined: May 12, 2010 Posts: 5678 Location: New England
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:49 pm Post subject:
Feralucce wrote:
Most court cases involve very little forensic evidence. Most of the information used in these cases is Eyewitness testimony, which is based on the faulty machinery of the brain. The cases are built on the testimony of people, not fact, but the subjective reality that the witnesses present to the court.
Truth: a verified or indisputable fact. Without forensic evidence, video or the like... there is none of that...
Conclusion, The court system is based on words, not truth.
MrXxx wrote:
...it is true that reality doesn't always match stated altruism.
IOW: The stated altruism of the court system is to get at the truth, but that isn't what always happens. It's not so much that truth has "nothing" to do with it.
I'm agreeing that the reality doesn't always live up to the altruistic mission. But I do not agree that truth as absolutely nothing to do with the court system.
Not sure I undersand the purpose of posting the video and article. I've already stated that humans are not perfect. Even in cases that rely heavily on forensics, the same problem exists. Forensic evidence can be screwed up just as easily as the human memory can be faulty. Science is only as accurate as the brains that process it, so the question still stands:
What are the alternatives? _________________ MrXxx is taking a long sabbatical, and no longer moderating.
There are no guarantees that the court system as it is designed will arrive at the truth of what actually happened, in a case presented, but determining the "truth" of what actually happened through the presentation of evidence judged as credible/not credible, is a goal of the court system.
This is what I am saying... Simply that the court has little, if nothing, to do with truth. Human perception and memory are the key aspects of most court cases... and as such, truth has little room to make an appearance
That's not my point. The court system has a lot to do with the requirement for truth in the court process, because it is designed to provide stiff penalties for not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Most law abiding citizens won't risk the potential consequence by intentionally lying.
The fact that human memory is fallible can impact human beings in any area of life, but it doesn't prevent human beings from accurately verifying facts that lead to a proper verdict in a court case. It's easier to verify facts when the evidence is clear in a court case, than when it is not as clear, but never the less, the court system is designed to ensure that facts are properly verified.
If the court system did not provide severe penalties for lying, I suppose one could suggest that the system was not designed around the principle of telling the truth or has much to do with the truth; but it is, everyone that testifies must take that oath, under the spector of the potential penalty of perjury, if they fail to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
A big issue with the Zimmerman case, is has a new law impeded the process of justice. If so, people will not likely accept it and the law may be redefined from preventing this from happening in the future.
The system and the people that are part of the system are far from perfect, but the checks and balances in the different branches of government, help to approximate a goal of liberty and justice for everyone, that the majority can agree upon.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: New information in treyvon martin case
Dox47 wrote:
Chronos wrote:
However one should not overlook the fact that should this have been the case, then Treyvon may have been within his right as he may have felt threatened being followed by a strange man.
I have yet to see the interpretation of the law that says you have a right to attack someone for following you.
It does not explicitly state that. You have a right to defend yourself if you feel your life is being threatened. The preferable thing would be to flee but for some people, that's not always an option. So there is room for interpretation and in some situations whether the person was within their right to act as they did will have to be decided in a court of law.
Joined: Feb 25, 2012 Age: 39 Posts: 788 Location: New Orleans, LA
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject:
aghogday wrote:
If the court system did not provide severe penalties for lying, I suppose one could suggest that the system was not designed around the principle of telling the truth or has much to do with the truth; but it is, everyone that testifies must take that oath, under the spector of the potential penalty of perjury, if they fail to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
A big issue with the Zimmerman case, is has a new law impeded the process of justice. If so, people will not likely accept it and the law may be redefined from preventing this from happening in the future.
The system and the people that are part of the system are far from perfect, but the checks and balances in the different branches of government, help to approximate a goal of liberty and justice for everyone, that the majority can agree upon.
And you are missing what I am saying... I am not implying that people are lying. I believe that, on the whole, they will recall their memories... as they remember them... accurately...
My statement is that since they are human, what they remember is RARELY the truth... Truth, the dictionary definition, not telling the truth...
The courts are designed to elicit a turhtful response form the witness, but that has nothing to do with fact. The 9-11 study shows that. Even a witness with perfect recall, due to biology does not remember what happened, but the cobbled together bits of information that his brain interpreted that to be.
If the court system did not provide severe penalties for lying, I suppose one could suggest that the system was not designed around the principle of telling the truth or has much to do with the truth; but it is, everyone that testifies must take that oath, under the spector of the potential penalty of perjury, if they fail to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
A big issue with the Zimmerman case, is has a new law impeded the process of justice. If so, people will not likely accept it and the law may be redefined from preventing this from happening in the future.
The system and the people that are part of the system are far from perfect, but the checks and balances in the different branches of government, help to approximate a goal of liberty and justice for everyone, that the majority can agree upon.
And you are missing what I am saying... I am not implying that people are lying. I believe that, on the whole, they will recall their memories... as they remember them... accurately...
My statement is that since they are human, what they remember is RARELY the truth... Truth, the dictionary definition, not telling the truth...
The courts are designed to elicit a turhtful response form the witness, but that has nothing to do with fact. The 9-11 study shows that. Even a witness with perfect recall, due to biology does not remember what happened, but the cobbled together bits of information that his brain interpreted that to be.
As such, the courts operate on human perception, not truth(or fact). The fact that many of the convictions from the 70s and 80s are being overturned due to DNA evidence.
The 9/11 study that you linked doesn't suggest that people do not accurately remember important details of an emotional event, it suggests that people remember the important details of an emotionally laden event more accurately than neutral events. That's a well known fact, and part of what contributes to PTSD.
The study showed that memory of less important details, associated with the emotional event change over time.
From the article you linked:
Quote:
With emotional events like 9/11, I think we do have better memory for the important details [as compared with a neutral event]—we just don't have great memory for all the details. And we think we do, and that's the real contrast. Whereas, if I told you that you don't remember the details of your 26th birthday, you wouldn't be surprised, necessarily.
For example, in a homicide if two witnesses know Joe, are with Joe at a bar and see Joe shooting John, the investigators don't expect the witnesses to remember what they had for breakfast a week later from the day of the shooting. Nor, do they normally wait seven days to investigate the incident.
If either of the witnesses attempt to obstruct justice by lying about the event to protect John, they can go to Jail for many years. It's not reasonable to suggest that they aren't capable of remembering the truth of who shot whom.
If it is a dark night and Betty sees a stranger shoot Bob, and confidently picks the wrong suspect out of a lineup that's a problem, it happens, but it's not the norm it's the rarity.
If there was any scientific or legal evidence to support an idea that the majority of people are humanly incapable of remembering actual important details/facts of crime events, the court system would not be able to function.
The 9/11 report does not suggest this; I can't find an alternate source of evidence that does. If you can, please provide it.
DNA evidence shows that mistakes can happen in court cases, but it's only been proven in a small minority of cases, 283, since 1989, 99 percent of which were male and 70 percent of which were minorities. The most common issue was misidentification of the suspect.
Actually, studies into inaccuracy of memory (including the kind of information used in court cases) indicate a low correct recognition percentage under stress (as encountered in a crime situation)
Per the introduction below from your linked article, limitations notwithstanding, per thousands of studies that have been done, the relevant literature supports the general view that memory formation is better in response to events that are perceived to be as stressful, personally relevant, and that elicit adequate physiological arousal or alarm.
Combat veterans are not representative of the general population.
While life and death violent situations that present the type of stress in the military study you linked do happen in the real world, they only comprise a minority of crimes that go to court. Per Wiki Violent Crimes/Homicide comprise less than 15 percent of total annual crimes committed, in the US. Homicide comprises about 1 in 500 crimes committed.
I worked with combat veterans for decades and understand that extreme chronic life or death type stress can negatively impact memory; it can even damage the structures of the brain responsible for memory.
Combat veterans are routinely subjected to this type of stress, and some comeback from combat with problems in mental functioning, because of the level of chronic stress they are exposed to.
In the study you linked, in low stress situations the active duty respondents in survival school did well in positive face recognition scoring 62 to 76% in positive face recognition. And even, with the high stress that was equivocated to the type of stress encountered in life or death situations, they were able to positively identify 30 to 49% of faces depending on the methods used for face recognition.
This one study you link here provides evidence that there are signficant problems with face recognition in life or death type stressful situations, but it is not reflective of the large body of research that provides concensus, that in general, memory formation is better in response to events that are perceived to be as stressful, personally relevant, and that elicit adequate physiological arousal or alarm. Only a minority of crimes are of the element of life or death type contigency.
Improper face recognition from the stress of life or death trauma, can be a source of error in the judicial system for wrongful conviction, but it is only one component of many important details of crimes that are verified as correct, on a routine basis in the court systems, relied upon for proper verdicts.
Quote:
1. Introduction
Over the past 20 years there have been over 2000 scientific investigations on the reliability of
eyewitness identification (Cutler & Penrod, 1995). The majority of studies have been conducted in the
laboratory using videotapes or live simulations of crime events; only a handful have been field studies
involving victims and eyewitnesses of real crimes. Laboratory studies are limited because crime
simulations do not entail the degree of personal ‘‘threat’’ or ‘‘alarm’’ that an individual may experience
during actual life-threatening events (Penrod et al., 1995). A major limitation of extant field studies is the
inability to control for specific factors (such as severity and intensity of traumatic events) that may
significantly affect human memory. Limitations notwithstanding, the relevant literature supports the
general view that memory formation is better in response to events that are perceived to be as stressful,
personally relevant, and that elicit adequate physiological arousal or alarm (Gold, 1992; Canli et al.,
2000).
At apparent odds with this general consensus are the findings from recent studies suggesting that
the eyewitness memories reported by combat veterans who have been exposed to life-threatening events
during combat may be inconsistent and subject to substantial error (Southwick et al., 1997; Roemer et al.,1998). In order to explain this phenomenon, some have proposed that during exposure to potentially
traumatic events, peritraumatic symptoms of dissociation may disrupt the encoding of memory and
contribute errors in memory for the traumatic events (Koopman et al., 1994).
According to this article, the local constabulatory have eyewitness accounts of the young black man on top of Zimmerman and beating on him, Zimmerman calling for help.
I wonder how the media is going to handle this after pushing for the crucifixion of this guy.
If some dude followed me, I would have reacted the same way. Zimmerman should have followed the guy in his car and watched him, without confronting him. Why didn't he do that? Instead, he approached him and the kid freaked out and reacted. Maybe the kid thought he would get beat up if he didn't. What if the kid had a gun and shot Zimmerman after Zimmerman approached him. Would that be self defense? If the kid were afraid Zimmerman would harm him? Martin didn't happen to have a gun. If he had, the outcome would have been in his favor.
Zimmerman overreacted. Nobody should get killed for just walking down a street in a neighborhood, even if this kid was vandalizing cars. _________________ JUST LET THE GUY BE FROM K PAX!!!!!!
Joined: Jun 19, 2008 Posts: 7998 Location: Babylon
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject:
He was all cleaned up in the video. To my understanding, he was not taken into custody right after he confronted Martin. It was, at least, a day later. I can't tell from that video if his nose is broken or not. It doesn't look bruised. He also claims he suffered a cut to his head but it is in the back, not easily seen from that angle. Point is, if he wouldn't have confronted, he would have not been hit, period. The cops told him not to harass the kid and he did it anyway. They clearly told Zimmerman not to do it. _________________ JUST LET THE GUY BE FROM K PAX!!!!!!
