Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Rule of Three

Since I am taking a break discussing the medical profession and its hijinks's in culpability that they deny and do the the whole "personal responsibility" bullshit meaning you did it to yourself asshole, we just helped you finish the job concept of comparative negligence that Lawyers refer to it as.

And on that note of accidents. First up comes the Police officer who assaulted a man whose car he just hit. Well this is Florida, this is stand your ground and when you just hit someone jump out of your car to blame them for you hitting them what do you expect? Flowers?

And then I found this gem about the cop who was taking "prescription drugs" at work affecting his job performance. I bet it was and I bet he had no problems however issuing DUI's and other arrests for drugs while doing so. Is that any oxymoron or hypocrisy or well just law enforcement?

Or that the firefighters who beat up the homeless man will be still on the disability payroll. Try that one tonight and see how that works out for you.

And on that note we have the study done with regards to false convictions. They believe it is a conservative underestimate.

Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death
Samuel R. Grossa,1, Barbara O’Brienb, Chen Huc, and Edward H. Kennedyd
Author Affiliations

aUniversity of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI 49109; bMichigan State University College of Law, East Lansing, MI 48824; cAmerican College of Radiology Clinical Research Center, Philadelphia, PA 19103; and dDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Edited* by Lee D. Ross, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved March 25, 2014 (received for review April 5, 2013)

The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.

Abstract
The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. There is no systematic method to determine the accuracy of a criminal conviction; if there were, these errors would not occur in the first place. As a result, very few false convictions are ever discovered, and those that are discovered are not representative of the group as a whole. In the United States, however, a high proportion of false convictions that do come to light and produce exonerations are concentrated among the tiny minority of cases in which defendants are sentenced to death. This makes it possible to use data on death row exonerations to estimate the overall rate of false conviction among death sentences. The high rate of exoneration among death-sentenced defendants appears to be driven by the threat of execution, but most death-sentenced defendants are removed from death row and resentenced to life imprisonment, after which the likelihood of exoneration drops sharply. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely, at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.

And this goes in line with a Federal Judge's recent comment about the "thousands of innocents" behind bars. Shocking, I know!

And then we have a Judge who as a Prosecutor committed misconduct. Sure why not everyone is doing it. Guess that Judge Prosecutor Indian Chief didn't get that memo.

Do you honestly think that the Robe suddenly changes those spots on the leopard? No all it does is cover them.

It is also why I wonder why any Attorney would advertise themselves as a "former" Prosecutor. Uh really, so you will lie to me but at least this time I will have firm knowledge and explanation as to why. And yes that tribe lies, it is their nature and their profession regardless. And yes there are exceptions. I know of one. One. I said one and I have a rule of three when I ask for substantiation. I failed my own test.

And on the last note, the Supreme Court is hearing a case about searching one's cell phone without a warrant. Well you can solve that one, just use if to make anonymous 911 calls.

The Rule of Three should be Cop/Prosecutor/Judge they decide your guilt long before they hear the evidence about the case and there is no evidence to change that rule of three and innocence has nothing to do with it.










No comments:

Post a Comment