Wrongful Convictions and why I think they happen

[doctorcoug]

Deductive vs inductive reasoning.

In law, a defense attorney believes that somebody is innocent and then tries to gather evidence to prove that theory to a group of jurors, the trier of fact.

Gathering the evidence, and THEN coming to the conclusion would be nice, but this seems not very feasible. Thus, some people end up with attorneys that can convince the trier of fact better than others, which can result in wrongful convictions.

thoughts?

[falafel]

Deductive vs inductive reasoning.

In law, a defense attorney believes that somebody is innocent and then tries to gather evidence to prove that theory to a group of jurors, the trier of fact.

Gathering the evidence, and THEN coming to the conclusion would be nice, but this seems not very feasible. Thus, some people end up with attorneys that can convince the trier of fact better than others, which can result in wrongful convictions.

thoughts?

I think you have it backwards.

The gathering and then weighing of the evidence occurs on the front end by the prosecutor. If the evidence suggests a crime has been committed, then a conclusion is made to charge the person. If that evidence is sufficient, a conviction will likely result. It usually will not result if it is insufficient. Not today, anyway.

The defense attorney's main job is to test the sufficiency of the evidence. I would argue that the defense attorney's relative ability (or inability) to convince the trier of fact results in way more acquittals of guilty individuals than convictions of innocent ones.