Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

03-16-2016 , 02:08 PM
Crime is not really down. There was a spike in the 1990's and 1980s but crime is still up from previous decades. You could also argue that the spike in crime in the 80's 90s was due to the drug war. Which probably played a huge part in it.
03-16-2016 , 02:16 PM
Also, incarceration rates appear to have started dropping in 2013, correlating with arrests. I cannot find any data after 2013 though. The fbi only appears to monitor arrests. But I am going to suggest that it is likely the crime rate/incarceration rate is generally correlated with each other.

Do you have conviction rates in 2014-15?
03-16-2016 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
She was told where to start looking. She didn't just decide to start there
Also just wondering where you are getting that she was told where to start looking. I have not read every page of the transcripts, but I did read Strum's testimony. She said she drove up the main entrance driveway to look for an owner, saw Earl Avery near there, got his permission, and decided to start searching by heading on foot south from where she met Earl. Earl told her to walk because the roads were muddy.

Assuming her story is true, the real reason it was found relatively quickly, was because it happened to be close to where she met Earl Avery to ask permission.

Again, not as exciting as the whole conspiracy theory thing.

By the way she asked for a camera because she wanted to be able to take pictures of she found anything. No one gave her a camera without being prompted, and pointed her towards the RAV4.
03-16-2016 , 02:42 PM
I assume we are starting with the premise that she couldn't have found the rav 4 that quickly without help to reach the conclusion that someone told her where to look.
03-16-2016 , 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Crime is not really down. There was a spike in the 1990's and 1980s but crime is still up from previous decades. You could also argue that the spike in crime in the 80's 90s was due to the drug war. Which probably played a huge part in it.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._1993-2012.xls


http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Unbelievable reductions in crime. We are at late 1960/early 1970s levels.

There could be many reasons. More bad people locked up. People much more vigilant (security systems, children not allowed to walk freely, better police technology.)

I don't think the average individual is anymore 'criminal' today than in the past. The problem with all these jails we built is that they need to keep on being supported. Which creates a huge incentive to 'find' more criminals.

Did the drug war go away?
03-16-2016 , 02:53 PM
She found the Rav4 after supposedly ~35 minutes of searching, which IMO isn't all that quick.

Also, there were other people from the search party who searched the yard earlier that day and didn't find the Rav4.

Pam got lucky to find the Rav4 after "only" 35 minutes of searching. She credits that, just like Russell Wilson credits his Super Bowl victory, to God.

Maybe God did help. Maybe it was just luck. Who really knows, and who really cares?
03-16-2016 , 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._1993-2012.xls


http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Unbelievable reductions in crime. We are at late 1960/early 1970s levels.

There could be many reasons. More bad people locked up. People much more vigilant (security systems, children not allowed to walk freely, better police technology.)

I don't think the average individual is anymore 'criminal' today than in the past. The problem with all these jails we built is that they need to keep on being supported. Which creates a huge incentive to 'find' more criminals.

Did the drug war go away?
Yes, but my point is that the incarceration rate was also starting to drop in 2013, this is the same year we started to see arrest rates drop ( which is the second set of data you sent me)

I am asking for convictions in 2014-2015. I bet we see a correlation, if so.. This would sort of disprove your hypothesis that we are less criminal and more people are being convicted. I think the conviction rates, criminal activity is correlated.. At least to a close degree.

Yes, the drug war is not as severe as in the 80's and 90s.
03-16-2016 , 03:16 PM
It appears I was misinformed. According to the DEA the arrests have been fairly consistent for drug related crimes.
03-16-2016 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I believe society in general is safer if a few innocent people get convicted over a lot of guilty people being set free.
First of all, do you know of a way to set up a system that ensures only a "few" innocent people are convicted? How do we calibrate a system skewed toward convicting innocents to make sure it's only a few and not a lot? If it's skewed, it isn't fair to the innocent. If it's not fair, how in god's green earth do we ensure it's only a little unfair? Honestly curious to know. Side note: it's already not a fair system if you're poor or in any way disadvantaged.

Even if this idea makes you feel safer from "criminals", it makes you less safe from police and the criminal justice system. It's not actually making you safer, it's just displacement.

Your comment pretty much supports the idea of a police state. But that's okay, so long as it's only a little bit of a police state. Y'know, like being a little bit pregnant.

Last edited by 28renton; 03-16-2016 at 03:37 PM.
03-16-2016 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
First of all, do you know of a way to set up a system that ensures only a "few" innocent people are convicted? How do we calibrate a system skewed toward convicting innocents to make sure it's only a few and not a lot? If it's skewed, it isn't fair to the innocent. If it's not fair, how in god's green earth do we ensure it's only a little unfair? Honestly curious to know. Side note: it's already not a fair system if you're poor or in any way disadvantaged.
mimic the american justice system. Statistics show that this is about as close as you can get to that. Like I said, millions of arrests every single year and less than 5,000 exonerated all time. That is unbelievably low. We could make it better, but in terms of risk reward; I am happy with those numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Even if this idea makes you feel safer from "criminals", it makes you less safe from police and the criminal justice system. It's not actually making you safer, it's just displacement.
Do you honestly think crooked cops are more dangerous than criminals for society? Chew on it for a minute. Seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Your comment pretty much supports the idea of a police state. But that's okay, so long as it's only a little bit of a police state. Y'know, like being a little bit pregnant.
I don't want a police state. I want to live somewhere that minimizes our risk of harm. The only way I can see to do this is to make sure criminals are kept out of society to deter crime and at the same time given the best chance within reason to not be wrongfully convicted.
03-16-2016 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I don't want a police state. I want to live somewhere that minimizes our risk of harm. The only way I can see to do this is to make sure criminals are kept out of society to deter crime and at the same time given the best chance within reason to not be wrongfully convicted.
This is question begging: "what is a criminal?" If a criminal is defined by being convicted by an unjust system, then you have a problem.
03-16-2016 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
This is question begging: "what is a criminal?" If a criminal is defined by being convicted by an unjust system, then you have a problem.
A criminal by the definition I am using is someone that breaks one of the laws to keep our society safe. Conviction does not define a criminal for me. Although, I wouldn't consider someone guilty of a crime unless convicted. Only they would know if they are a "criminal" without conviction I suppose but they would still be a criminal.
03-16-2016 , 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
mimic the american justice system. Statistics show that this is about as close as you can get to that. Like I said, millions of arrests every single year and less than 5,000 exonerated all time. That is unbelievably low. We could make it better, but in terms of risk reward; I am happy with those numbers.
Wait a second. Do you honestly believe that every innocent person put in jail has been exonerated? Cause if not, you know that 5000 number is brutaly dishonest
03-16-2016 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
Wait a second. Do you honestly believe that every innocent person put in jail has been exonerated? Cause if not, you know that 5000 number is brutaly dishonest
No, nor do I believe every guilty person has been caught.

There are over 200,000 unsolved homicides for example.

Last edited by fraleyight; 03-16-2016 at 04:13 PM. Reason: homicide numbers
03-16-2016 , 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
mimic the american justice system. Statistics show that this is about as close as you can get to that. Like I said, millions of arrests every single year and less than 5,000 exonerated all time. That is unbelievably low. We could make it better, but in terms of risk reward; I am happy with those numbers.



Do you honestly think crooked cops are more dangerous than criminals for society? Chew on it for a minute. Seriously.



I don't want a police state. I want to live somewhere that minimizes our risk of harm. The only way I can see to do this is to make sure criminals are kept out of society to deter crime and at the same time given the best chance within reason to not be wrongfully convicted.
Your reply makes a large number of assumptions:

1.) All arrests are justified. For example, consider the case of Patrick Pogan, a police officer who unjustifiably tackled a cyclist. Despite the officer being the aggressor and inciting the incident, the cyclist was charged with attempted assault and resisting arrest.

If not for the video evidence showing the officer was completely in wrong and that in no way the cyclist attempted assault, do you think for one second the cyclist's testimony would have been taken over the officer's? That would have just been one more wrongful conviction.

But I suppose in your world all the wrongful ones are luckily and coincidentally caught on video.

2.) Less than 5,000 exonerated all time.

That's only the number of exonerations that have been proven. This is not the number of wrongful convictions, of which there are most assuredly many more.

In 2015 alone, there were 7 death row exonerations. By your own words, you're okay with 7 innocent people dying just so you can "feel" a little safer. Which brings me to my next point:

Yes, crooked cops are at least as dangerous as any other criminal.
03-16-2016 , 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
No, nor do I believe every guilty person has been caught.

There are over 200,000 unsolved homicides for example.
Jfc what is your point?
03-16-2016 , 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Your reply makes a large number of assumptions:

1.) All arrests are justified. For example, consider the case of Patrick Pogan, a police officer who unjustifiably tackled a cyclist. Despite the officer being the aggressor and inciting the incident, the cyclist was charged with attempted assault and resisting arrest.

If not for the video evidence showing the officer was completely in wrong and that in no way the cyclist attempted assault, do you think for one second the cyclist's testimony would have been taken over the officer's? That would have just been one more wrongful conviction.

But I suppose in your world all the wrongful ones are luckily and coincidentally caught on video.

2.) Less than 5,000 exonerated all time.

That's only the number of exonerations that have been proven. This is not the number of wrongful convictions, of which there are most assuredly many more.

In 2015 alone, there were 7 death row exonerations. By your own words, you're okay with 7 innocent people dying just so you can "feel" a little safer. Which brings me to my next point:

Yes, crooked cops are at least as dangerous as any other criminal. Maybe you should spend some time chewing on your thoughts first.
My numbers don't take into account innocent people who haven't been exonerated nor do they account for guilty people who haven't been convicted. All we can do is draw conclusions based on the data we do have, anything else is just speculation. Are there currently 5,000 innocent people in prison? 100? who knows. There have also imo, been guilty people that have been exonerated, anthony porter is a name that comes to mind, although I admit this is extremely uncommon it still happens. There are several variables to consider here.

As for your death row point, I am adamantly against the death penalty. Partially because of the reason you listed but also because it does not do anything to deter crime. It is just a revenge tactic. I do not believe in a criminal justice system centered around revenge. Also, most death row inmates don't get executed so it is just a huge waste of money.

But anyway, I will address your point because I think it is important here. 7 people were exonerated from death row. How many murderers are actually guilty of murder serving time in prison iyo? or better yet on death row lets say.. A few thousand? Lets say hypothetically out of the almost 3,000 people currently on death row than 100 of them are innocent. I think that is a fair number for your point. that means as of last year there were 3,000 people on death row and around 107 of them are innocent people (maybe) is society safer to allow 2500 of those people free to increase the odds of saving the 107 innocent (more or less drastically increasing the evidence needed to convict someone) or is it safer keeping it the way it is? Risk the potential 100 peoples lives to save society from the other 2500 people? It is an interesting question and I do not see how you can conclude that the former is better for society.
03-16-2016 , 04:27 PM
03-16-2016 , 04:31 PM
I thought my point was self evident. Do you really not get how that factor is important to this discussion? if we were to increase the amount of evidence needed to convict there would be more murders running the streets.

Would you rather have 500,000 murderers running the streets or a couple hundred innocent people in prison?
03-16-2016 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I thought my point was self evident. Do you really not get how that factor is important to this discussion? if we were to increase the amount of evidence needed to convict there would be more murders running the streets.

Would you rather have 500,000 murderers running the streets or a couple hundred innocent people in prison?
I'll answer that question as soon as you tell me where you got those numbers
03-16-2016 , 05:17 PM
So any cliff on new evidence or anything?? Or is he gunna rot in jail
03-16-2016 , 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
I'll answer that question as soon as you tell me where you got those numbers
I don't know how we would calculate such a thing. You are suggesting we increase the burden of proof, thus drastically increasing the number of guilty people who are free while decreasing the number of innocent who are in prison. I do not think 500,000 to 200 is an unfair ratio given the numbers considering the data suggests a much larger discrepancy.

We are talking over 100,000,000 people arrested since 1989 vs a little less than 1800 people exonerated. So 500,000 murderers (the most severe crime) vs 200 innocent people, I think is a fair ratio.

Last edited by fraleyight; 03-16-2016 at 05:31 PM.
03-16-2016 , 05:31 PM
I changed my post to say "arrested" , the number of people convicted is closer to 20,000,000 based on someone elses post itt. I haven't fact checked it but he is arguing your position.
03-16-2016 , 05:59 PM
I'm sure these numbers are soothing respite for the innocent people on death row. Knowing their deaths are helping keep america safer must fill them with a sense of pride.
03-16-2016 , 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
First of all, do you know of a way to set up a system that ensures only a "few" innocent people are convicted? How do we calibrate a system skewed toward convicting innocents to make sure it's only a few and not a lot? If it's skewed, it isn't fair to the innocent. If it's not fair, how in god's green earth do we ensure it's only a little unfair? Honestly curious to know. Side note: it's already not a fair system if you're poor or in any way disadvantaged.
A system where a small number of innocent people end up being found guilty is not, by definition, unfair.

I'd like to see your definition of a perfectly fair criminal justice system, where an innocent person has a zero percent chance of being found guilty.

Take for example a woman who is sexually assaulted. She knows her attacker. The defendant says it was consensual. There are no other witnesses. How are you supposed to design a perfectly fair system, where a)the victim always gets justice and b)a falsely accused person is never found guilty?

It's not gonna happen, because we're dealing with human beings.

      
m