Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

The question isn't about absolute certainty.  Just the same reasonable certainty, that you require from evidence.  And yes, I can say the same that I question my beliefs, which is why I create threads like this (although I'm sure a number of people will come about and call me a liar).

What I mean, is that if there is reason to believe that they are lying or mistaken, then it doesn't demonstrate their case is true

I don't know of any studies that done specifically for the reliability of testimony (although while I don't have the means, I could think of a few examples).   But by looking at the numbers, 351 people have been exonerated by the innocence project the first in 1989[IP] . it is my understanding, that the majority of these are rape and murder charges.  The prison system holds about 169,000 people each for these offenses[2016 Statistics ]  This is what I mean by cherry picking or more correctly anecdotal evidence (in the proper sense).  When someone wants to make a make a case against witness testimony, they often will bring up Jim Bob who was wrongfully convicted, and later released.  However this doesn't tell the whole story.  It can be true, that Jim Bob was wrongfully imprisoned, as well as a number of other people if one does a google search on the topic.  However, the results of your google search only means that it is news, and what people are talking about.  As unfortunate and saddening that it is, that these people where wrongfully convicted a number of which on the basis of testimony.  It doesn't show that testimony is unreliable  For that you would need to know how many of these people currently imprisoned where judged primarily on a basis of testimony as the main anchor for the conviction.   Now if it is 500 of and 351 where wrongfully accused base on testimony, then you certainly have a case.  If it is 25% of the 2016 population (referenced above)  of inmates found guilty based on testimony with 351 shown to be innocent, then I think your case is weakened quite a bit. (I wasn't able to find any reference to convictions with this data and what the primary cause for conviction was) You also have to take into consideration the error that was made.  Now of this number, being  a fraction of the total as it is, those attributed to witness testimony, is a large proportion of the wrongful convictions.  However, if you look closer, a large proportion of this, deals with mis-identification.   If your remove witness identification from this number, (remember, I am very much for the reforms in regard to mis-identification), then the topic of witness testimony, falls in line, with of forensic science errors, authority misconduct, and false confessions.  And stories are just now coming to light, on how DNA evidence is perhaps not as reliable as we assumed. 

So perhaps I am holding on to the "status quo", and I'm not saying that we don't need to be wary or make reforms.  However my experience in business and with politics, is that in such cases, people also tend to over-react, and often not for the better. There are certain issues with memory, and it is not perfect.  And people can lie.   However I believe that through corroborating evidence, that we can mitigate the lies, and that for the most part peoples perception of reality and even their memory of it is generally reliable and useful as evidence.

---

Wow, I'm not even going to try to clean up the hash you made of that.

First, you claim I'm cherry picking by posting the available data. Not my fault that the data isn't complete enough for you. After all, what would be enough for you.
Second, you either didn't see or are ignoring the point I made about the convictions overturned. None were overturned due to new testimony. The overwhelming majority were, gotta love this part, especially since it's exactly what you were bitching that I wasn't giving you, convicted on bad, wrong or just plain false testimony and were overturned by the introduction of new physical evidence.

Care to comment on that? After all, it's the testimony sending these poor bastards down the river and the real evidence that's exonerating them.

Well it was wing night, and I've had a few beers... so I apologize if it I wasn't quite clear.
Perhaps I'll look at it tomorrow, and be able to better express myself better, but do you not think that new witness testimony would not or has not won an appeal? Also you largly did. It arrests most of my points.

I agree, people have been wrongly convicted based on testimony. The same is triple for forensic evidence. You might also consider that the innocence project works a lot with new DNA evidence... Largly because it wasn't available at the time of conviction. However I think that new evidence as testimony I would also be welcomed.