|
This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
|
|
People are absolutely certain in their own false memories all of the time. So the witness’s certainty is completely irrelevant. https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-misinformation-effect-2795353
I wonder sometimes if having a more mathematical background would help judges.
Pro: Understanding the idea of averging “certainty” according to a weighting function (i.e. memory before police suggestion should be weighted more than memory after) would help with such reliability judgments.
Con: Despite constantly discussing terms that seem to be refering to probability (e.g. probable cause, reasonable doubt), lawyers, judges, and indeed legislators are never filtered by numerical literacy (at a level relevant to these issues), so honestly it’ll be a long time before it becomes remotely plausible to have that kind of conversation in court.