|
Aesop Poprock posted:I'm seriously confused how anyone can listen to gentle voiced, scholarly David Attenborough narrate over subjects he's been an expert in for decades and come to the conclusion that he sounds cringingly awkward. That's like listening to an MLK Jr. speech and being like "who the gently caress is this shrill nerd" Maybe the poster has confused David Attenborough with his brother Richard Attenborough in his role as John Christie, and somehow has acquired a version of Planet Earth narrated in these tones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQH7aFLux0
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Fruit Soup Riot posted:You are responding to numerous in-depth analyses with "Look at this picture, dude." Bite mark analysis is complete pseudoscience, and the fact that you blindly support it and have any role in the criminal justice system is completely loving terrifying. I suspect its because the Defendant really should have had an expert of his own to say bite mark analysis is bullshit and let the jury make up their own mind. If it really was as obvious as stated, they would have come to the right conclusion. But there is probably no way that happened since there is no money given for criminal defence in England and Wales any more. I mean the fact that people have been (unvoluntarily) representing themselves in criminal proceedings is unnerving enough. This is also the major catch-22 for most criminal appeals in E&W. If you want to challenge bunk science you have to put up significant cash to get experts to look at your case before the criminal appeals body takes over, in order to show that it was bunk in the first place. The body in charge of appeals will throw as much cash at a case as they need to, to investigate things, but getting to that point is often a hurdle prisoners can't pass regardless of merit. Forensic science is in a very dangerous place in the UK due to budget cuts and I wouldn't be suprised to see either US style hucksters filling the gaps or an increase in collapsed cases due to mishandling from workload in official channels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
All taken aboard re bitemark analysis - I will be more sceptical of it in future. But I want to add one more thing; jurors would be instructed to decide for themselves whether they should take into account the bitemark evidence in a case. If it is questionable (and from reading the citations in this thread it sure looks more questionable than I'd assumed) then a decent defence expert should be able to explain that to a jury (in a perfect world where a defendant can afford one anyway). Also, I checked my notes in the particular case I'm talking about and the jury were told in the judge's summing up to consider the bitemark corresponding with the defendant's missing teeth on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to being explicitly told that it proved the defendant bit the corpse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
That we rely on juries to the extent that we do is kind of unnerving in and of itself - we get twelve randoms off the street and expect them to be able to analyse complex and often contradictory pieces of highly technical evidence (that may or may not hold up to rigorous scientific method anyway) in fields where they generally have no familiarty. Hell, even if there isn't complex evidence, they can still be easily swayed. One of my lecturers had a case where a guy was at a party, got into a fight with the host's brother, went home and had a nap, came back a few hours later with a knife and stabbed him to death. The jury found the guy had brought the knife with him when he came back for self-defence, and returned a verdict of manslaughter. There's a fairly common sentiment I've heard expressed in a few different places which is that if you're innocent you want a judge trial, and if you're guilty you want a jury, and it's exactly because of poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Post Your Favorite (or Request): Coldly Compiled Lists › PYF unnerving article or story: Actually, science doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Pick posted:Holy poo poo, this one Let's try this again, this man was caught in part because when he forged a letter from his dead wife, he had to include completely out of context comments about his own penis and how great it is
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Pick posted:Let's try this again, this man was caught in part because when he forged a letter from his dead wife, he had to include completely out of context comments about his own penis and how great it is This isn't the Trump thread, Pick. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Pick posted:Let's try this again, this man was caught in part because when he forged a letter from his dead wife, he had to include completely out of context comments about his own penis and how great it is And the entire purpose of the forged letter was to seduce a woman who barely knew his dead wife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
I think the dumbest criminal on the show was the one who murdered a lady, used her credit card and then signed his own name on the receipt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6SHqvqMBwA
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Celery Face posted:I think the dumbest criminal on the show was the one who murdered a lady, used her credit card and then signed his own name on the receipt. Oh my god. And that's not even the only bafflingly stupid thing he did. I thought that the dude who threw the perfect bag of perfect evidence into a place it would easily be found was dumb, but this guy takes the cake. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Not all arson investigation is bullshit, either. Check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffM1pHuILhk A really good episode here too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Varkk posted:The other thing with forensics is the experts say (or should be saying) things like: the results are consistent with the suspect being the offender. Or even they don't not show he did it. But prosecutors and jurors hear "He did it because *SCIENCE*" That's because SCIENCE has been slammed down our throats for decades as the only possible arbiter of TRUTH. If SCIENCE says he did it, then he's guilty, no matter how shaky the research is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
Khazar-khum posted:That's because SCIENCE has been slammed down our throats for decades as the only possible arbiter of TRUTH. If SCIENCE says he did it, then he's guilty, no matter how shaky the research is. So...take it on faith then? Like, what's your great idea to replace science? Me? I'd shove even more science on people, teaching them how to DO the science stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:So...take it on faith then? Like, what's your great idea to replace science? For most people SCIENCE is like throwing a piece information into a magic box and waiting to see what infallible truth falls out on the other end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
http://www.anonews.co/katelyn-nichole-davis/quote:"Roughly 28 minutes into the video you begin to hear people calling out for Katelyn. You hear “Katelyn” and “Katie” called out multiple times. The voices sound as if they are getting closer, at one point sounding close enough to where they possibly almost discovered her body on camera." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I'm seriously confused how anyone can listen to gentle voiced, scholarly David Attenborough narrate over subjects he's been an expert in for decades and come to the conclusion that he sounds cringingly awkward. That's like listening to an MLK Jr. speech and being like "who the gently caress is this shrill nerd" This isn't the Post Your Personally Held Unpopular Opinion thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Holy poo poo this is depressing as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:So...take it on faith then? Like, what's your great idea to replace science? The problem isn't science, the problem is that people don't understand what IS and ISN'T science. In the long run, I'm afraid that efforts to get kids interested in science have had a negative effect on the understanding of what science actually is- which is why so much pseudoscience and dumb garbage gets posted by IFLScience and the like. What people think of as "science" is mostly "cool things about physics", when in reality it's "by relying on observational data and repeated experiment we can most closely determine the truth". When there's a forensic technique being used, and a person proves that it has no validity as a test, and people keep using it - the exact opposite of science has occurred. Observational data has been discarded in favor of a pet theory! But then because what they're doing sounds scientific they're still credited with "doing science" to the general public. theflyingorc has a new favorite as of 16:57 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The problem isn't science, the problem is that people don't understand what IS and ISN'T science. Yeah. With regard to the bad arson investigation methods, the New Yorker article I posted mentions that arson investigators got a special pass to ignore a statute that required expert witnesses to use the scientific method (controlled trials, peer-reviewed research, etc) because what they did was "more art than science"  In the same article, the thing that exposes those methods is that someone eventually does set up a control, a house fire started without an accelerant, to prove that the way they've been interpreting the evidence is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
pookel posted:Can't speak for other Americans, but I found Attenborough so cringe-inducingly awkward that the series was unwatchable. Dude... For anyone reading this, please do not associate this opinion with all Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:That we rely on juries to the extent that we do is kind of unnerving in and of itself - we get twelve randoms off the street and expect them to be able to analyse complex and often contradictory pieces of highly technical evidence (that may or may not hold up to rigorous scientific method anyway) in fields where they generally have no familiarty. Hell, even if there isn't complex evidence, they can still be easily swayed. One of my lecturers had a case where a guy was at a party, got into a fight with the host's brother, went home and had a nap, came back a few hours later with a knife and stabbed him to death. The jury found the guy had brought the knife with him when he came back for self-defence, and returned a verdict of manslaughter. There's a fairly common sentiment I've heard expressed in a few different places which is that if you're innocent you want a judge trial, and if you're guilty you want a jury, and it's exactly because of poo poo like this. The idea of being tried by a jury of 12 people who were either to dumb to get out of jury duty or had nothing else to do but jury duty is very, very unnerving to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:The idea of being tried by a jury of 12 people who were either to dumb to get out of jury duty or had nothing else to do but jury duty is very, very unnerving to me. I've never been called for jury duty. Never. It seems odd that I've never been contacted. Do you get thrown off lists for being arrested?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:The idea of being tried by a jury of 12 people who were either to dumb to get out of jury duty or had nothing else to do but jury duty is very, very unnerving to me. Don't forget, jury selection also has fun questions like disqualifying me from serving on assault cases because I've been assaulted by a man, but not asking men if they've assaulted women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Jury selection and jury instruction are two areas that we really just haven't figured out how to do properly yet. Maybe there's just no good way to do it, but jury selection is a complete free-for-all, and jury instructions are so wildly different from judge to judge that its like one of the primary factors that can decide a case, which absolutely is not the intended purpose of jury instructions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Lana: "I just traveled eight thousand miles and got shanghaied by Malaysian pirates trying to rescue a person who is now responsible for my getting crabs twice! Archer: "Oh, come on! These crabs, this time, were not my fault. This whole dungeon is, um...." Ray: "Were you gonna say 'lousy with them?'" Archer: "I was, but then I realized that's, uh..." Riley: "Where that phrase comes from? Yeah." Archer: "Yeah." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B479N7vgcq0
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Anyone checked out today's Cracked articles? Some of the entries on "The 6 Worst Ways People Made Money"* are definitely worthy of this thread. Examples include the Japanese hospital administrator who offered to take care of babies from poor families and then let them starve (or worse) and doctors and paramedics in Poland who delayed patients treatments to let them die for kickbacks from corrupt funeral homes. *Cracked articles tend to have changing titles. Death Zebra has a new favorite as of 20:10 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:The idea of being tried by a jury of 12 people who were either to dumb to get out of jury duty or had nothing else to do but jury duty is very, very unnerving to me. Not to preach or anything, i've skipped jury duty too, but if the system unnerves you, try and serve when you can you may save someones life from a mob of idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I feel like the only person on earth who wants to do jury duty, but I've never been called.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
The whole "hurhur anyone who serves on a jury duty was too dumb to get out of it" thing is silly. A few years ago when I got called up, I had no reason to be disqualified; serving would be inconvenient but not a severe financial hardship, and I had no personal experiences or family ties that would make me an undesirable juror for either side. The only way to get out of it would be to flat-out lie directly to the judge. I don't think anyone should be blamed for not being comfortable with that, and the judge himself asked some pretty probing questions when people did try to bullshit him. I'm sure this varies by court, but there is no secret trick to easily getting out of jury duty that only smart people know. For most of the people on my jury, it seemed to be the same—it was annoying, but they didn't have a real reason to be excused, so might as well do one's civic duty and not have to worry about it for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:I feel like the only person on earth who wants to do jury duty, but I've never been called. I really want to as well, plus I've got a time limit on it - I'm in my final year of law school, and if I get registered as a lawyer next year, I'm automatically disqualified, even if I don't practice law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
When I hear people talking about that ASMR sensation, this is what I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Maybe if the people who ARE smart enough to get out of jury duty just, you know, lived up to their responsibilities instead then this wouldn't be an issue. If you're thinking of making up a bullshit excuse to get out of jury duty, you should absolutely consider the chances that someone dumber than you may end up getting chosen and that it could end up costing someone years of their life(or allowing someone who committed a crime to get off scot free).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
effervescible posted:The whole "hurhur anyone who serves on a jury duty was too dumb to get out of it" thing is silly. A few years ago when I got called up, I had no reason to be disqualified; serving would be inconvenient but not a severe financial hardship, and I had no personal experiences or family ties that would make me an undesirable juror for either side. The only way to get out of it would be to flat-out lie directly to the judge. I don't think anyone should be blamed for not being comfortable with that, and the judge himself asked some pretty probing questions when people did try to bullshit him. I'm sure this varies by court, but there is no secret trick to easily getting out of jury duty that only smart people know. The trick to getting out of jury duty is to not show up. There is no enforcement. Showing up to lie is dumb, risky, and a waste of everbody's time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
DogonCrook posted:The trick to getting out of jury duty is to not show up. There is no enforcement. Showing up to lie is dumb, risky, and a waste of everbody's time. Yeah, I've gotten 4 or 5 letters for jury duty in my life. I've thrown every one out and never had a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
I've only been called up once and would definitely have gone if I wasn't out of the country at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
DogonCrook posted:The trick to getting out of jury duty is to not show up. There is no enforcement. Showing up to lie is dumb, risky, and a waste of everbody's time. I missed a jury notification due to moving out of state the prior year, did all the paperwork updates and everything. The jury office tracked me down in my new state to inquire why I hadn't gone to the jury call. I had to send them a scan of my new license before they would believe that I was ineligible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:I missed a jury notification due to moving out of state the prior year, did all the paperwork updates and everything. The jury office tracked me down in my new state to inquire why I hadn't gone to the jury call. I had to send them a scan of my new license before they would believe that I was ineligible. Yeah, where I'm at they can charge you with contempt of court, which can be a bad time depending on how much of an example they want you to be. I missed my summons once. I must have thrown it out by accident with some junk mail. They just sent a nasty-gram saying I'd have one more chance and get a summons in the next 30 days. If I missed that, I'd have to show up to a hearing where I could have a contempt of court slapped on me. Fortunately I saw that one. They have a check-in by phone the evening before and tell you if you even need to show up and it counts as fulfilling your service.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:18
|
|
