4
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
For clarification:
10000 convicted
Why does the 10,000 matter? Only the very next step is the figure being sought. Those who are directly affected by eyewitness testimony.
10000 convicted
Why does the 10,000 matter? Only the very next step is the figure being sought. Those who are directly affected by eyewitness testimony.
Gidday Psyche, This is in response to both of your posts for me...its that time thing again...gets worse this time of year...
anyhow the 10000 figure is crucial in determining what that 75% figure really represents
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone
OK, so we have out sample of those convicted by eyewitness testimony. 5,000 people.
out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.
Why are we back to the ten thousand? if the 5,000 directly pertains to eyewitness testimony? We are only considering those that have been reinvestigated are we not? And we have not got to that number yet. Why do those convicted by confession, DNA ort other get into the mix again?
OK, so we have out sample of those convicted by eyewitness testimony. 5,000 people.
out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.
Why are we back to the ten thousand? if the 5,000 directly pertains to eyewitness testimony? We are only considering those that have been reinvestigated are we not? And we have not got to that number yet. Why do those convicted by confession, DNA ort other get into the mix again?
we have to always go back to the 10k figure because we are using the number 10, this number is not resctricted to eyewitness testimony alone ...just 75% of it is.
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
out of these 10 we know 7.5 are those that were convicted on eyewitness testimony.
If, out of ten thousand, ten were selected to have DNA evidence admitted. Then we have the 75% figure that has been attained above. But above, only 5,000 were convicted be eyewitness testimony? Where did the ten thousand come from? Why not a thousand in ten thousand? The we have 750 people.
If, out of ten thousand, ten were selected to have DNA evidence admitted. Then we have the 75% figure that has been attained above. But above, only 5,000 were convicted be eyewitness testimony? Where did the ten thousand come from? Why not a thousand in ten thousand? The we have 750 people.
not sure what you mean here with regards ot the 750 people?? if we use 5000 and say 10 of these are overturned throiugh DNA then the figure would always read 100% not 75% or any other. this is because the 25% figure includes other means of conviction therefore the 10 is always out of the whole pool.
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
Or are you illustrating that the statistic is based on a sample of the overall population? If so, surely it does not pertain to actual convictions? The overall population does not have the opportunity for a retrial.
This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of
7.5/10000 on total convictions
or
7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...
so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075
or
that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone
so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..
Here are the actual numbers, form the link:
This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of
7.5/10000 on total convictions
or
7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...
so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075
or
that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone
so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..
Here are the actual numbers, form the link:
probably a good idea to look at some of the actuals although I think this will raise many more questions as stats always do...
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.
• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.
• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.
• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.
-hmm only 301 since 1989, doesnt strike me as a large number versus those convicted in same period..
-yes it is sad 18 people served time on death row....this leads me to ask though, should we exclude any method that has shown any level of fallability (confessions included) if not then we could argue that 18 out of 1million convicted through eye witness testimony is a small price to pay, as sad as it is to have any waste their life when innocent, how many methods are we left with that are 100% accurate? how many guilty would walk though if we were reduced to the infallable methods?.
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
Races of the 300 exonerees:
187 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown
187 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown
this shows nothing, if 10million convicted and 9million were African Americans then the stats above would show an unbalance, you would basically expect the above stats to follow %wise the number of those convicted, i.e. if 300 are convicted would 187 be African AMericans and 86 Caucasians? if so then the abobve stats are bang on as expected...as I said the above shows us nothing in itself.
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 146 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.
there is lots of big individual conversations to be had with these points. I will just say great work in convicting the real criminal in nearly 50% of these cases i.e. 146 out of 301
psyche101, on 12 December 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:
I think these more accurate figures paint a much more concerning figure than what has been proposed above?? It also strongly suggest that other factor such as racism affect the outcome of eyewitness testimony, which in turn fortifies the very fact that testimony is influenced by emotion as well. And it is definitely a great deal more than one in one hundred thousand.
speak soon
