The judicial system is extremely unreliable—this in itself suggests that denying cryonics as though you’re sure that all the prisoners with life or death sentences are guilty isn’t sound.
Furthermore, while I doubt that permanent murder will ever be legal, sometimes the laws under which people are sentenced change.
The judicial system is extremely unreliable—this in itself suggests that denying cryonics as though you’re sure that all the prisoners with life or death sentences are guilty isn’t sound.
This is a good point. Perhaps the courts could specify a minimum timeframe to keep the person cryopreserved, which is longer if the evidence is weak. At the end if the criminal is still considered guilty they are thawed and buried. If they are exonerated, their preservation becomes indefinite until a resuscitation method is developed.
You are sentenced to read The Agitator until you understand how biased the system is in favor of arbitrary convictions. There are coerced confessions (otherwise known as plea bargains), corrupt judges and prosecutors, and inept forensics labs.
The evidence doesn’t have to look weak to be bad, and some of what makes for bad evidence (a line-up can imply that the guilty person is included) can be pretty subtle.
The evidence doesn’t have to look weak to be bad, and some of what makes for bad evidence (a line-up can imply that the guilty person is included) can be pretty subtle.
Bad evidence and an incompetent judicial process is a different problem to be addressed separately from weak evidence. I didn’t say this was a solution for irrational convictions, just relatively weak ones.
Well, the system can be (shall we say) less than optimal without being very much biased in favor of “arbitrary” convictions. For starters there are no plea bargains that result in a death penalty. In Less Wrong terms, plea bargains may be analyzed by means of game theory, which does not show that they are equivalent to coerced confessions.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “corrupt judges.” Stupid and/or biased, I would grant you, but that’s true for much of humanity, isn’t it? I would suggest that judges in criminal cases in the U.S. and common-law nations, in their official capacity, suffer from fewer biases than the average person. I understand that similar precautions mayexist in European nations governed by civil law, but I’m not familiar with the specifics.
On the other hand, I’m reminded of Chesterton’s poem, on another subject:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God, a British journalist;
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
Strictly speaking, in most American criminal trials, the judge does not have the power to convict—a jury does. Granted, the jury is chosen by a procedure that may not be calculated to produce the very best decision-making body. But I would hesitate to say that they are systematically biased to give “arbitrary convictions.”
With that said, I don’t think reading Radley Balko should be regarded as a punishment.
The judicial system is extremely unreliable—this in itself suggests that denying cryonics as though you’re sure that all the prisoners with life or death sentences are guilty isn’t sound.
Furthermore, while I doubt that permanent murder will ever be legal, sometimes the laws under which people are sentenced change.
This is a good point. Perhaps the courts could specify a minimum timeframe to keep the person cryopreserved, which is longer if the evidence is weak. At the end if the criminal is still considered guilty they are thawed and buried. If they are exonerated, their preservation becomes indefinite until a resuscitation method is developed.
You are sentenced to read The Agitator until you understand how biased the system is in favor of arbitrary convictions. There are coerced confessions (otherwise known as plea bargains), corrupt judges and prosecutors, and inept forensics labs.
The evidence doesn’t have to look weak to be bad, and some of what makes for bad evidence (a line-up can imply that the guilty person is included) can be pretty subtle.
Bad evidence and an incompetent judicial process is a different problem to be addressed separately from weak evidence. I didn’t say this was a solution for irrational convictions, just relatively weak ones.
Well, the system can be (shall we say) less than optimal without being very much biased in favor of “arbitrary” convictions. For starters there are no plea bargains that result in a death penalty. In Less Wrong terms, plea bargains may be analyzed by means of game theory, which does not show that they are equivalent to coerced confessions.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “corrupt judges.” Stupid and/or biased, I would grant you, but that’s true for much of humanity, isn’t it? I would suggest that judges in criminal cases in the U.S. and common-law nations, in their official capacity, suffer from fewer biases than the average person. I understand that similar precautions mayexist in European nations governed by civil law, but I’m not familiar with the specifics.
On the other hand, I’m reminded of Chesterton’s poem, on another subject:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God, a British journalist;
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
Strictly speaking, in most American criminal trials, the judge does not have the power to convict—a jury does. Granted, the jury is chosen by a procedure that may not be calculated to produce the very best decision-making body. But I would hesitate to say that they are systematically biased to give “arbitrary convictions.”
With that said, I don’t think reading Radley Balko should be regarded as a punishment.