Probably when we develop superior artificial intelligence that assumes control. Of course, humans will probably be deemed as inferior, imperfect, and flawed, so we'll all be destroyed. But then the legal system will be fixed because we won't be here to screw it up.

I don't think a being with A.I. will turn against humans because it won't hate us simply because we are inferior, imperfect and flawed...unless it has emotions. But it would be insane to give a being with A.I., emotions. Emotions is the root of most of our problems today.

I know and agree

It's simple. Make it so our legal system can't send people to prison or murder people(death penalty) without evidence. How? I don't know right now because the average Joe in this country doesn't have any power but something needs to be done. I'm not allowed to criticize something without offering a solution? Who said, our legal system has to be 100% perfect? I don't even think perfection is possible when it comes to a legal system. It doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to something that doesn't allow innocent people to get put in prison and raped or murdered. And all it takes is a single case to reveal to people that a legal system is garbage. I really don't get your "If something can't be made to be 100% perfect, then why bother doing anything." mentality.

Yes, it would definitely help if most people had digital cameras 24/7. Apple and Samsung is already making this come true with their cellphones. People should also install hidden cameras in their homes if they don't 100% trust the people they are living with... Most Russians already do the same thing when driving to protect themselves... But these things would only help people where the legal system is civilized. In a country like the USA, you don't need evidence so of course, digital cameras don't really make much of a difference here. Here it's just something that lets people take selfies and record epic fails.

I disagree because victims usually just want revenge and revenge is not justice. I believe, only an intelligent, logical and civilized person is capable of deciding what is justice. And someone who is a victim is not an intelligent, logical and civilized person due to all the sadness, rage and hate inside. A victim ceases to be human and becomes a beast looking to satisfy it's lust for blood. People should never let those who scream for justice to serve justice with their own hands. That will take society down a dark path, indeed.

HUEHUEHUE
Well at least questionable evidence is something... And that makes your legal system at least 100000 years more advanced than ours...

You make a good point. When people suffer, they like to see other people suffer. And when people are forced to do something they don't like, they don't care about the job anymore. They just want to finish the job as quickly as possible. Like the Taco Bell or Mcdonalds worker who half asses while cleaning the bathroom and mopping the floor instead of working hard because "Fuck this job!". When it comes to many things, the UK is definitely way ahead of us.

Skynet!!!

Heh, heh, I honestly couldn't agree more. We are such a flawed and destructive human species that would erode whatever planet we should ever colonize.

And one of the things that make innocent people getting sent to prison in the USA so horrible is all the prison rape that goes on in our prisons... So not only is an innocent person locked up and treated like an animal. There is a good chance, that person will be raped many times. And our prisons do have a lot of violent psychopaths so forcing an innocent person to live amongst these people is like dropping a baby giraffe into a pit full of hungry lions. And of course, when one spends a decent amount of time with criminals, they are going to rub off on you. So sending an innocent man to prison is also turning that innocent man, into a criminal...

The legal system has its moments but sometimes it can be a pain. It's all case-by-case and it's like most other legal systems in that it has its flaws and screw ups but it also has its moments.

Examples include when jurors do favor forensics, ballistics, and other forms of actual evidence over trial by media and sensationalism. I'd give examples but that would just lead to a huge flame war and possibly a riot but it involves some punk ass adolescent who assaulted a man who was walking back to his car after trying to talk to this punk as part of his community watch duty and that punk getting shot slamming the man's head against pavement.

Examples of bad decisions in the legal system include a man in Minnesota getting sent to prison for defending himself against two young adult burglars and Jesse Ventura getting rewarded for being a whiny bitch.

How would you improve the legal system so that innocent people don't get convicted when there is enough circumstantial evidence exists to legally convict? Better, how many guilty people go free on technicalities and how would you prevent that? Calling a legal system GARBAGE because a very small minority are convicted when innocent is ludicrous. Are you even old enough to vote? Do you understand the depth of the political environment and the intricacies of the legal system enough to demonstrate which laws are not only superfluous, but detrimental to the overall operation of the system?

Should laws be changed to make it harder to convict people when a far larger number of guilty parties are already able to walk free and cause even more havoc compared to the small number of innocent people who are convicted.

I'd personally like to hear your ideas on how to improve the system without further causing more people to go free on technicalities.

F*** it. Wait, that's illegal was well.

Nobody did, including me. I said that to eliminate the problem that you highlight by linking the story - incarcerating the innocent - the system needs 100% accuracy in determining guilt or innocence. Because that's what happened: the system wasn't 100% accurate.

I fully agree, within the bounds of the rights of the citizenry. Have you dug into the original case to see what other evidence was presented? I admit I have not so I don't know what other evidence made its way into the proceedings. Maybe it was a sham, or maybe there WAS a bunch of evidence that happened to support her story.

Again, I never said the whole thing needed to be perfect, nor did I say (or imply) that it is not worthwhile to pursue a reduction of this problem. But to avoid putting innocent folks in prison then we need the system to be 100% accurate (or perfect, which means not even a single case) in determining guilt or innocence. Without that, by definition, there will be more cases like this. That's why I ask what you would propose to achieve that accuracy.

Nobody said that you MUST provide a solution, but I'm trying to get you to consider your position that the system is garbage because some folks are wrongfully sent to prison, and then have you understand that it's all but impossible to eliminate that possibility without some sort of 1984 thing going on. By that yardstick - no false imprisonment - EVERY nation's justice system is garbage because what you ask simply can't be done.

See, you set the bar at perfection, and anything less than perfection is garbage - even if it's just a single case. Or you could simply have said that there are some problems that need fixing without throwing the entire justice system into the trash can. Is it a problem? Sure. Is the entire justice system like this? Far from it.

Say, if you'd like to get involved in fixing these problems, a decent place to start is http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Some states are also undertaking similar measures as part of their justice system. Might want to check into the things that your own state is doing, and then contact your representatives to encourage them to change policy so your Attorney General looks into these old cases. Granted, at this point it's mostly DNA testing old evidence, but it's a start to help those incorrectly incarcerated.

As a defense attorney, I frequently have to defend against prosecutions based entirely on one person's uncorroborated accusation. Generally speaking, I think this is wrong; when all you have is two people testifying against each other, how can there not be reasonable doubt?

I have never defended a sex abuse case such as in this article, but the problems with prosecutors' use of "child sexual abuse syndrome", where virtually anything a child does can be considered consistent with a history of abuse, make for interesting/disturbing reading.

And this is not even get into the dangerous and filthy environments in many prisons and the daily humiliations people are put through while in prison/jail. Punishment can be warranted, yes, but I believe conditions there frequently go beyond what is warranted.

Power is a cake and no piece will ever be left unclaimed so you can't expect everyone to just sit around the cake and not touch it. Also, there aren't enough pieces for everyone. The anarchist's dream is to smash the cake into such small pieces that no one bothers picking up the resulting little crumbs and thus everyone tries to live in peace without anyone using power on anyone, no coercion of any kind. My dream as well, but it's a dream because it doesn't factor in human nature which has not evolved at all since the dawn of civilization. There's always some civilizations that as a whole can pull things off more nicely than others but they rise and sink and humankind as a whole hasn't changed one bit. (I'm not talking about flatscreen TVs and spaceships)

Humans are tribal animals, biggest difference is we write our laws on paper. I'm with you on a/, b/ (partially), d/ and e/, there's not much one can argue against that. As for c/, laws were made by people and they can be changed by people. You are a person too and if you play the politics game then you can change laws. Not single-handedly of course but more like Thulsa Doom in that you influence people and usurp the power to change laws or become law in that way. If you're like me and don't like to play that game because you don't like manipulating people and all the BS, well then you're out of luck. But I still think that the Rule of Law is preferable to the "Rule of the Fist" as we call it in German because the latter would quickly translate to "rule of who has the bigger gun and more friends/goons/allies". Now if one wants to be cynical, rule of fist is already in place even in Switzerland as the police have guns and they outnumber any citizen who wants to go against the grain - and the police don't serve me as much as those who have usurped the largest pieces of the power cake even if you take police corruption out of the equation - the police enforce the laws which people like me who have no cake can't influence all that much. Then again, as mentioned above I could play the politics game and usurp larger pieces of the cake than the tiny crumb I have, kinda my fault if I don't.

As for self justice, emotionally I can most certainly sympathize with it but not rationally, not if you put the long-term greater good of society above your short-term personal urges. Not saying I wouldn't act the same as the Russian guy under stress but I would not have any expectations of society to show any mercy on me (or anyone) after such a the deed. In other words, if I can't control my urge to apply self justice, then I have no place in society.
If I compare a place where there is rule of law such as Switzerland to places where revenge killing is culturally or even legally acceptable, then Switzerland generally comes out on top as the better place to live, even if I never agreed to most of the laws here and am not happy with quite a number of them.
Of course correlation does not imply causation but there is little alternative to comparing countries at face value - proving what causes what is an endless loop. You could say Switzerland is nice to live in not because of its laws but because of economic factors etc and that the revenge killing friendly countries are worse off for "economic factors alone" but I'm not quite risk-friendly enough to try and find out if Switzerland or other comparable countries would remain stable and peaceful if you'd remove rule of law. Money and connections rule here like in every other place but as I pointed out in the first paragraph there have always been some places that are more tolerable to live in than others - it changes over the centuries. To what degree the respective legal systems in place are a factor I can't define but I can't think of any sizable and not geographically isolated case where anarchism has ever worked to the benefit of the common populace. As I said, human nature will ensure there's always some bullies sneaking into the pantry and slicing up the power cake. That cake is always there, if no one touches it than we could have something potentially great but it only takes a few to ruin it for everybody.

Ultimately, there's not one place on Earth that has a legal system and laws that I consider ideal. Which is why I would probably volunteer for the Mars Mission, but only if there are no asshats on the spaceship with me.