Re: Apple IIe seen in Discovery Channel documentary "2057: The Body"

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:

> And do you know the #1 reason against capital punishment?  Judges and
> courts sometimes make mistakes, causing innocent people to be
> sentenced to severe punishment.  It happened yesterday, it happens
> today, and it can, and probably will, happen tomorrow.  The legal
> system isn't infallible and will never be infallible.  And if an
> innocent person is sentenced to death and executed, and the mistake is
> revealed years later, the execution cannot be undone.  If he instead
> is innocently sentenced to lifetime in prison, he can at least be
> released when the mistake is revealed, and given economic compensation
> for the time he was innocently jailed.

I agree that fallibility is the ultimate argument against an
irreversible punishment.

Every so often, technology affords us an opportunity to assess the
accuracy of our justice systems objectively--the latest example being
DNA signature testing.

Although the sample is still relatively small (but growing) and I'm
not aware of any hard scientific analysis of the implications of the
many reversals of sentencing that have occurred, it seems clear that
there is a surprizingly large probablility of being convicted of a crime
that one did not commit.

The justice system, and indeed the entire society, has not yet come to
grips with this recently demonstrated fact.

In the US, we have a justice system based on adversarial proceedings,
in which the accuser (usually the government) and the accused debate
the guilt or innocence of the accused before a judge and often a jury.

The "objective" is met procedurally, by having a very stylized way in
which each side presents and defends their case, and by having strict
rules regarding admissibility of evidence and testimony.

I would be much happier if the "objective" was to determine the truth,
and I find debate to be a relatively poor way of determining objective
truth.  I believe that science offers a much more reliable method of
determining facts when objective evidence is available, regardless of
"admissibility".

The fact that the legal system participants are evaluated on the basis
of either the number of cases they "win" or the number of judgements
that are not "reversed" tilts their motivations away from objectivity
toward defending the position that is most beneficial to them.

I realize that there are no easy answers to these questions, and that
people have a legitimate right to privacy.  But do they also have a
right to conceal the truth when it might be damaging to themselves?

Would it be appropriate for the "universe" to be called as a "fair
witness" to determine what actually happened whenever there is reason
to doubt the accounts of the participants?  The continuing trend
toward detailed forensic evidence analysis would suggest that many
people think this is an appropriate direction.

-michael

NadaNet file server for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."