1/I've long argued that, if we're to allow habeas "actual innocence" claims over DNA evidence, it is essential to estimate not just the accuracy of the DNA test, but also the probability the original decision was in error. As to the latter, it won't do to scan the Loftus lit re
Are eyewitnesses more reliable than generally thought? Would seem that the general bias of psychology is to look for bias and error, so likely overestimates these relative to accuracy. Also the race-crime relationship motivates denial of evidence. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617734878 …pic.twitter.com/XEN5KOglbr
-
-
-
2/eye-witness testimony in _general_; rather, one would need to examine the accuracy of the trial process, in which witnesses are examined in a staged way, with rules of evidence, and a jury or judge assesses their _credibility_. But oddly there's been little interest in
-
3/empirically ascertaining & quantifying the accuracy of the legal process. [Note that I'm not trying to oppose the Innocence Project &c, just my preference for a full accounting.]
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.