Some notes about the testimony of Alyce LaViolette about entries in Jodi’s journal just before her road trip. 37:00 May 27 journal entry. JA talks about meeting Ryan Burns, trip to Utah. Evidence she is leaving TA, she says “great news”. Talks about making plans to go to Utah. 38:00 May 30 journal entry. JA making […]
“That ungrateful soul betrayed me, O God, how unhappy he made me! But, though betrayed and abandoned, I still know pity for him. When I feel my suffering, my heart speaks of vengeance; but when I see the danger he’s in, my heart beats for him.”
“So often not only in opera, but in all types of fiction written by men in past centuries, women are either shamed and vilified, or, more often, idealized and put on a pedestal. Fully human, complex female characters can be hard to find. Yet in Elvira, we find one. A female character with both comic and tragic elements; who has genuine dignity yet makes a fool of herself; who’s no shrinking violet, but no pillar of strength either; who has blazing anger, but too much love to maintain it, and great capacity for compassion, but too much anger to maintain it; whose faithful, passionate love has both positive and negative effects; whose humiliations are sometimes played for laughs but never portrayed as justified; and who remains morally gray throughout the opera, with neither the other characters nor the creators ever judging her.”
Donna Elvira is I think a character far ahead of her time, a betrayed woman who forgives the most damning faults in Don Giovanni, who feels the desire for vengeance, but who still has empathy for the danger he is in. This is the great puzzle of men like Don Giovanni, why women keep come back to them and feel for them, even as they are terribly betrayed.
The aria is I think a masterpiece, coming towards the end of the opera where Don Giovanni refuses to repent and is carried down to hell.
In quali eccessi, o umi, in quai misfatti orribili, tremendi è avvolto il sciagurato!
Ah no! non puote tardar l’ira del cielo, la giustizia tardar. Sentir già parmi la fatale saetta, che gli piomba sul capo! Aperto veggio il baratro mortal! Misera Elvira!
Che contrasto d’affetti, in sen ti nasce! Perchè questi sospiri? e queste ambascie?
Mi tradì, quell’alma ingrata, infelice, o Dio, mi fa.
Ma tradita e abbandonata, provo ancor per lui pietà .
Quando sento il mio tormento, di vendetta il cor favella,
Ma se guardo il suo cimento, palpitando il cor mi va.
Recitative in English
In what abysses of error, into what dangers, Thy reckless path pursuing, Have guilt and folly brought thee! The wrath of heaven will surely overwhelm thee, It is swift to destroy.
The lightning flash of retribution impendeth, It will soon be upon thee! Eternal ruin at last will be thy doom. Wretched Elvira! What a tempest within thee, thy heart divideth!
Ah, wherefore is this longing? These pangs of sorrow?
Interesting article on why women kill.
“Of the 532 offenders identified from those incidents, 453 (85 per cent) were male and 79 (15 per cent) were female, which are figures typical of what we observe both in Australia and internationally. ”
“In particular, homicides driven by concealment and jealousy were all committed by males”
“So why do women kill?
Although homicide is predominantly male perpetrated, of the cases investigated women most often killed for gain or what they perceived as “love”, and for the most part targeted those closest to them.
Gain homicides are those committed for personal benefit, such as money or business and personal advantage. The homicides committed by women for gain in the sample were mostly carried out for insurance payouts, assets, or due to being removed from a will following a divorce, and generally involved the partners of the women.”
Full article here:
The large scale abuse of the women gymnasts by Larry Nasser has exposed a flaw in the way crimes are reported. Nasser was able to exploit a weakness to abuse a large number of young gymnasts without being arrested or prosecuted, even though many of the victims had complained to their parents and to authorities.
The issue is that a single complaint may not be sufficiently credible for law enforcement action to be taken, but if there are multiple reports which corroborate each other, then it is possible to bring a prosecution.
What would an ideal system look like? To encourage truthful reporting, I suggest an automated system where humans are not given access until a defendant is identified by the system, based on multiple independent reports. The reporting system should be programmed to prompt for relevant details, to allow the computer system to automatically see if there are independent reports which corroborate each other. When the computer system holding the reports identifies a probable crime and a defendant, this information should be automatically published (without identifying information) and police should consider the report and obtain a court order for further investigative action to be taken, and ultimately for a prosecution to be brought.
A long trial, intended to establish a truth about the natural world “beyond a reasonable doubt” may be a complex problem.
By “complex problem” I mean some kind of puzzle where you need to be quite organised to keep a large number of details under control, where the solution is not obvious, where a problem needs to be broken down into smaller components, and each component needs to be carefully examined and considered separately. We have to do this with large problems, because the human brain simply cannot think about very many bits of information at one time.
Most people, in most jobs, will never or hardly ever encounter complex problems they are required to solve. I am not sure what you should call the required skill, perhaps analytical skill, although I am not sure that captures it.
This skill is needed in mathematics, where the proof of a non-trivial mathematical theorem has to be constructed from “lemmas” (which are minor theorems used during the proof construction ).
Mathematics is similar to justice in that proof is the central concept, although of course mathematical proof has a different kind of certainty to it – mathematical certainty rather than legal certainty, which is usually built around the somewhat fuzzy concept of “reasonable doubt”, which is more akin to probability theory* than mathematical certainty.
But although mathematical proof is different to legal proof, there are still similar errors that can be made. False assumptions, clerical errors and errors that arise from our imperfect understanding of the extremely complex natural world, including human behaviour.
Analytical skill is also needed in engineering and computer programming. For example, software to control a large aircraft needs to be broken down into small components, there may be many thousands of such components in a large project.
People with very good “analytical skills” (for want of a better word) may be quite rare, and rarer still in jury pools where employers of people with very good analytical skills may be reluctant to release employees for long periods of time.
So there is a strong chance of serious error when a group of unskilled people are asked to analyse a complex problem.
There is no way to independently test if the jury solution to a criminal problem is correct. While aircraft can be carefully tested, to see if the solution works, there is no way to test the verdict of a jury. If it is wrong, the error may take decades to discover, or the error may never be discovered ( at least in a court of law ).
This could perhaps help explain why there are many wrongful convictions.
* It is reasonable to view the job of a juror as calculating a probability of innocence ( while incorporating uncertainties about the calculation itself into their reasoning in a conservative way ). A typical jury instruction would state “If you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him/her guilty”. If a juror concludes the probability of innocence is very small, say less than 1% then it would be reasonable and rational to be “firmly convinced” of guilt, even though the required level of certainty is never made explicit in jury instructions, it is left to the personal interpretation of each juror.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution may offer circumstantial evidence which is less than conclusive, and suggest that an innocent explanation is unlikely, even though an innocent explanation is quite reasonable, and is not excluded by reliable evidence
People sometimes say “I don’t believe in coincidences”. The universe of potential suspicious circumstances may be very large, and we often cannot even say if a coincidence is likely or unlikely.
This is “inductive reasoning”. From the wikipedia article on inductive reasoning:
“As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.”
Confirmation bias may set in when inductive arguments are made (whether implicitly as evidence is presented, or explicitly in closing arguments), and evidence that shows the prosecution case is improbable may be ignored as a result of confirmation bias.
I believe wrongful convictions can easily occur when ambiguous evidence is presented. It is quite natural for jurors to reason inductively, as inductive reasoning often produces good results, even though it is not reliable.
Prior Discussion which led to this post.
For the past couple months, I’ve had a feeling of guilt over presuming someone else’s guilt.
This started 15 years ago back when I was the new morning guy at KHOP in Modesto, California. You probably don’t know much about Modesto. If the small city’s name does ring a bell, there’s a 99% chance it’s because you remember the story of the horrendous murder of Laci Peterson. The only thing you could possibly otherwise know it for is it was the setting for the movie American Graffiti. But you’re probably not old enough to remember that movie. I’m not. And I’m old.
My time in Modesto was too long. The people were nice. Really nice. Generous, kind, down to earth hard working people. But the city itself was brutally dull. I have two prominent memories of life in Modesto. A nearly constant breathtaking sour odor of cow manure on the…
View original post 1,029 more words
I think many people think the US justice system has safeguards and is designed to protect the rights of innocent people.
Superficially that’s true, but it’s administered by politicians who can bend the rules whenever it suits them, and make judgements that defy common sense but which are not “unconstitutional” (so not subject to Federal challenge).
So in practice, wrongful convictions are commonplace, in serious cases perhaps 4% of accused people are innocent. Solving serious crimes is a tricky business, and there are going to be lots of mistakes.
Prosecutors with a weak case like the death penalty, because
(a) It allows them to appeal to juror emotions more strongly. There is a stronger presumption of guilt.
(b) It slows the entire process down, so by the time the truth is revealed (if it is ever revealed), the prosecutor has probably moved on and is now a judge or in private practice, or retired or dead.
A criminal justice system is a necessity, but society should recognise that convictions are not and cannot ever be certain, however much a jury is exhorted to respect the principle of reasonable doubt. People can be easily fooled, it is human nature.
So it is inevitable that there will be wrongful convictions. What is wrong is to suggest that wrongful convictions do not and will not happen, and to have extreme sentences that are unnecessary and serve no useful purpose for society.
Nonsensical prosecution cases that don’t add up.
(1) Jodi Arias plans a murder in which she takes selfies of herself committing the crime.
(2) Scott Peterson plans a murder, in which he disposes of the body in broad daylight, and then tells the police where he disposed of the body.
(3) David Temple plans to murder his pregnant wife with a shotgun at 4:10 p.m. in an upstairs room, hoping nobody will hear the shot or notice his vehicle or him leaving the scene.
(4) Justin Ross Harris murders his son, and while doing so, is sexting underage women, an offense for which he is sentenced to 10 years in prison.
(5) Jason Sadowski duct-tapes two women to poles, tortures them, then unties one of them and let’s her call the police on a mobile phone ( also leaves the building, so they are free to leave, no locked doors ).
(6) Darlie Routier murders her sons, with her husband in the house, and rushes outside to plant a sock in an alley-way hoping he won’t come down in the meantime. She then sets about a complex staging of the scene involving nearly killing herself.
(7) Angelika Graswald murders her fiance by removing a tiny plug on the top of his Kayak, even though the amount of water that can come in due to bad weather there is minimal compared to the amount coming through the large opening where he sits.
(8) Debra Milke murders her son because “she didn’t want him to grow up to be like” his father.
This is a question I wish jurors would ask themselves more often.
What I think is often missed, is that if you pick a random person out of a telephone directory, the odds are very high than they are not someone capable of heinous murder.
In any homicide investigation, there are two questions to be considered:
(1) Was it some kind of accident or self-defense, or is it murder.
(2) If it’s murder, who did it.
The first question may sometimes seem trivial, but it’s not. Any number of wrongful convictions arise from situations where an accident or self-defense killing is mistaken for murder.
Unfortunately people are far too easily persuaded there is a crime on uncertain evidence, and forget how unlikely it is that an accused person is guilty, especially when there is no apparent motive for an alleged crime, and the accused has no notable record of physical violence towards others.
Uncertain evidence comes in two varieties:
(1) The evidence itself is uncertain : the source is not reliable, or a mistake may plausibly have occurred. An example is making inferences from an absence of evidence, or eyewitness identifications, which are notoriously unreliable. Or a statement made by a person with a motive to lie.
(2) The inference is uncertain : there is an innocent explanation that cannot be ruled out.
I wish jurors would not vote guilty on uncertain evidence, especially when the innocent explanation is far more probable.
And that’s the memo.