sigh..

Smell my jeans.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

What? Apply rigorous scientific double blind testing to the technologies used to throw people in prison? That's crazy talk. I'm sure Jesus was personally guiding that german shepherd- no further testing needed.

He convinced people that his dog can track a scent underwater? That's just strange that anyone would believe that. It would mean that the dog can breathe under water. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

>> ^dag:
What? Apply rigorous scientific double blind testing to the technologies used to throw people in prison? That's crazy talk. I'm sure Jesus was personally guiding that german shepherd- no further testing needed.



that's such an offensive thing to say I think you should be shakeld for a month.

Insane. What a horrible situation.

>> ^FaerieWhings:
He convinced people that his dog can track a scent underwater? That's just strange that anyone would believe that. It would mean that the dog can breathe under water. There is none so blind as he who will not see.


I think he meant the dog could smell underwater scents while being above water.

I can't help but be reminded of the recent Supreme Court ruling that convicts do not have the constitutional right to request DNA tests on preserved biological evidence. It seems that protecting judges and prosecutors from embarrassment is more impotent then sorting out the innocent from the guilty.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55H4BD20090618

So the "evidence" used to convict him is completely discredited yet he still is imprisoned for twenty years? I'm not a huge fan of litigation but I hope this guy sues.

entr0py,I just read your link. That's seriously fucked up.

And this is why, for those of us who find ourselves upset at this story, owe it to the entire world to learn, practice, and teach the proper use of logic, reasoning, and the scientific method before we ever accept claims. Understanding logical fallacies and how to defeat them trumps all.

reliability...
fingerprints? nope.
bite marks? nope.
bullet analysis? nope.
eyewitness testimony? nope.
lineups? nope.
police interview? nope.
interrogation? nope.

DNA? yep, with caveats.

i'm taking a paper titled "psyc, crime and law", (lectured partially by people in the innocence project, who are heroes) and it's thoroughly depressing learning about all the horrific wrongdoings. i now have no faith in the criminal justice system (particularly the united states', glad i don't live there).

>> ^Samaelsmith:
entr0py,I just read your link. That's seriously fucked up.


They basically said it's a legal issue, not a constitutional one.

As horrible as this story is, don't think it still isn't happening today, under other circumstances and/or other technology.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
As horrible as this story is, don't think it still isn't happening today, under other circumstances and/or other technology.


You mean like the story of Eric Frimpong?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4300383

>> ^entr0py:
I can't help but be reminded of the recent Supreme Court ruling that convicts do not have the constitutional right to request DNA tests on preserved biological evidence. It seems that protecting judges and prosecutors from embarrassment is more impotent then sorting out the innocent from the guilty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55H4BD20090618


What the.. unfucking believable. This is sad.

"8 days after the murder and a hurricane had rolled through" .. the dog handler working today claims that the particular dog he saw in videos would be unable to pick up a reliable scent, but does not say that perhaps the dogs he's training would be capable of doing so.

O_O

My bloodhound Jed (RIP) could routinely track suspects even in a complete vacuum.

>> ^potchi79:
>> ^entr0py:
I can't help but be reminded of the recent Supreme Court ruling that convicts do not have the constitutional right to request DNA tests on preserved biological evidence. It seems that protecting judges and prosecutors from embarrassment is more impotent then sorting out the innocent from the guilty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55H4BD20090618

What the.. unfucking believable. This is sad.


What's sad is that we borrow and spend so much god damned money on unconstitutional shit that they can use the excuse "it will cost too much" and not get completely laughed out of town. A solid justice system is one of the few, undeniable, constitutional activities for which the Federal government needs funding, and we've pissed it all away on useless wars, bureaucracies, and welfare ponzi schemes.

@ 6:45. This guy says scientific rigor is "relatively new" and he is completely correct. "Scientific rigor" is at least hundreds of years old. Laziness goes back a few thousand years.