undefined | Better HN

0 pointsLawtonfogle11y ago0 comments

>For example, under your definition it would be legal to falsely testify in court.

The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.

>It would be legal to publish child pornography.

Those who produce it would still be hunted down with extreme prejudice and any potential market would be immediately priced out by legally produced computer generated images. If anything, it would better allow us to hunt down the producers, increasing the number of children rescued. It would also stop the courts from ruining the lives of children who sext. Not perfect, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume the costs are greater than the benefits.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

CHY87211y ago· 1 in thread

> The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.

Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed? How about the police officer who testifies that they found the fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime? How about the totally forged chain of custody for evidence? What about the bit where the police stitched the interrogation tape together so that the accused has a recorded confession?

Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.

I don't think you can make the second claim without some kind of evidence at all.

LawtonfogleOP11y ago

>Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed?

Heard about the FBI and their recent DNA scandal. Our current system isn't preventing the problem already. Police already are known for falsifying evidence.

As for a legal basis, you still have the ability to sign away your rights (well some of them at least), which is how an NDA would still be legal. You can choose to enter into such a contract with the government, but with the key difference being one of choice. You don't choose it, then you don't get to be a police officer, judge, etc.

>Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.

It already is for the majority of the players too poor to pay to win.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse