But paint me skeptical as to whether increased use of technology can actually improve the reliability of the proofs.
Imagine a world where deep fakes are much better quality but our system hasn't yet caught up to take that into proper consideration etc.
Serving for life is already a big deal as punishment goes. I'm just asking to not have experimental medical experiments on people. I'm not saying they should walk free
Let’s look at, let’s say, Apple and its tight control over entire hardware and software iPhone stack. Nothing prevents them to announce that starting from iPhone 19 they cryptographically sign the video to ensure that it’s authentic and, at least, the video and sound are what the camera saw. Pro cameras can do it, for Apple it’s even easier, more or less. I’m sure that even on this site there are experts who can design such system that is as secure as we expect from Apple devices. And that thing will slowly spread due to competitive pressures.
—-
Involuntarily drug testing was one of examples that I gave, and you seem to be against. To some it may be extreme, and I completely understand where you’re coming from. To me… as I said - for some examples from the side the murderers surely lost their human privilege. That comment summarized my feelings after reading the website in much more succinct form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803
Killing 13 month infant, putting bleach on 20 yo gas station employee and setting her on fire, stranding female who was screaming for help during sa. Mate, if your kidney is compatible with someone who is in need, you made your choice way too long ago to have any right to say anything now. Or if there are other uses that will benefit society and humanity as a whole - they are allowed. You are guilty (without doubt and with clear evidence) and sentenced to death. Now you have same amount of rights as cadaver on the table, but probably more uses while you still breathing.
But I think that society should prevent this kind of basic instinctive response to become the way that we collectively handled those monstrosities, mainly because those punishments will be abused against innocent scapegoats.
https://exonerationregistry.org/sites/exonerationregistry.or...
In the end it's more about the appearance of justice than actually performing it. And even in the performance of it, it is still just that: a performance.
If you were to have capital punishment, I'd make prosecutors liable for any knowingly false accusations and the withholding of evidence. And even without that, things could change fast after a few posthumous exonerations when the pitchforks of the deceased's relatives come out for the phony witnesses and corrupt cops.
It's called the "justice system" but how can people be so sure it is? Justice only for the rich or the "club members"? Is it audited? Who gets to hide or shield from it under the guise of "national security?" Are juries being manipulated through the "Reptile Brain trial strategy?"
I recently heard someone say: "Cops kill cops who don't trust other cops?" Why is that? Is a cop killing another cop part of national security too? Who decides? Who do you trust?
It's always naive, unlearned, horrible people who clamor for "deterrence" and "revenge" via "throw away the key" and executions. Like Trump and the Central Park Five.
Invoking Trump (that I don’t care about, especially in the context of this conversation) is so cheap... I suggest you to go straight to Godwin law and compare me to literal Hitler, because that’s the quality of your argument (lack of there of, to be precise).
