They allow some small number of articles for each browser before putting up the wall. And I think you can defeat it by removing your cookies. I think that qualifies it for free linkage.
The defense lawyer was pretty incompetent. Even if the defendant was in the same park as the victim at the time of the murder, that's hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the murder.
And there's no excuse for a prosecutor trying to pressure an innocent victim into pleading guilty - they sent an innocent person to prison and possibly allowed the real murderer to keep on killing people. Unfortunately, this happens all the time.
The prosecutor doesn't know if the person is guilty or not. They believe they have enough evidence to prosecute. At that point, they're minimizing the public expense of prosecuting, by getting a guilty plea.
The problem is when the junk science makes everyone convinced of guilt. Once that happens, nothing good is going to happen.
I think the fault is in the whole idea of giving reduced sentence for confessing. I understand that a confession is easier and there should be some incentive to make one, but it seems like the police coerce defendants into making confessions by threatening the longer sentence if there is no confession. While this may result in true confessions sometimes, it also inevitably results in some false confessions. It is just too easy for a prosecutor to make their evidence sound very strong in the absence of a judge and jury to scare the defendant into a confession.
The sadder thing is that the accused typically has so little faith in the justice system that they'll accept a "deal" rather than take their chances with a judge / jury.
That cynicism translates back into broader society and causes antipathy if not hostility in the general public towards the police. The whole thing creates much more harm than good.
Sounds like the blame is on the defence there for not challenging obviously flawed conclusions that any expert witness could have debunked TBFH - not to mention that being near a murder isn't enough for a conviction either.
I have been called for Jury duty probably seven times. The prosecution and the defense both have a limited number of potential jurers that can be rejected, and each time I ended up being passed over. Once, just after my company was sold, I was called while unemployeed and was selected to be on the jury.
We were instructed to not speak to the other jurors during the trial, but I had already decided that a stern looking oil and gas attorney on the jury would end up being a law-and-order throw-the-book-at-them type. Once we got into the jury room to decide the sentence I realized how wrong I was. Our first vote was 2 for acquittal (me and the attorney) and the rest leaning towards guilty.
The trial wasn't complicated, but I was alarmed that most of the jury had a very poor understanding of the evidence presented. I heard reasoning such as the following: "Well, I'm a Mom and I'm just very very against drunk driving." OK, but what the hell has that got to do with the evidence we heard? There were serious problems with the evidence presented and it took a couple of hours of discussion before it we eventually settled on not guilty.
Years later a lawyer here explained to me why the compositions of the juries is so frightening. The juror pool used to come from local property tax records. This was decided to be unrepresentative of the population and they moved to pools based on driving license records. Anyone with a driving license can end up as a juror. Many of the people that don't come up with excuses for why they shouldn't take a week away from work are those that you wouldn't trust with any kind of important decision.
> The prosecution and the defense both have a limited number of potential jurers that can be rejected
Well, an unlimited number can be dismissed for cause, and the prosecution and the defense have, on top of that, a limited number that each can unilaterally dismiss without cause (peremptory challenges.)
16 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 37.6 ms ] threadAnd there's no excuse for a prosecutor trying to pressure an innocent victim into pleading guilty - they sent an innocent person to prison and possibly allowed the real murderer to keep on killing people. Unfortunately, this happens all the time.
The problem is when the junk science makes everyone convinced of guilt. Once that happens, nothing good is going to happen.
Edit: I think it's because I blocked cookies from them a while back when I got paywalled before.
That cynicism translates back into broader society and causes antipathy if not hostility in the general public towards the police. The whole thing creates much more harm than good.
We were instructed to not speak to the other jurors during the trial, but I had already decided that a stern looking oil and gas attorney on the jury would end up being a law-and-order throw-the-book-at-them type. Once we got into the jury room to decide the sentence I realized how wrong I was. Our first vote was 2 for acquittal (me and the attorney) and the rest leaning towards guilty.
The trial wasn't complicated, but I was alarmed that most of the jury had a very poor understanding of the evidence presented. I heard reasoning such as the following: "Well, I'm a Mom and I'm just very very against drunk driving." OK, but what the hell has that got to do with the evidence we heard? There were serious problems with the evidence presented and it took a couple of hours of discussion before it we eventually settled on not guilty.
Years later a lawyer here explained to me why the compositions of the juries is so frightening. The juror pool used to come from local property tax records. This was decided to be unrepresentative of the population and they moved to pools based on driving license records. Anyone with a driving license can end up as a juror. Many of the people that don't come up with excuses for why they shouldn't take a week away from work are those that you wouldn't trust with any kind of important decision.
I don't know how to fix this.
Well, an unlimited number can be dismissed for cause, and the prosecution and the defense have, on top of that, a limited number that each can unilaterally dismiss without cause (peremptory challenges.)
Worth watching