Hacker News Reader

Which part do you think is absurd? That eye witness data can be considered or that the DNA evidence is irrelevant?

I don't support the death penalty but I see the judge's point. Most DNA evidence isn't very useful and rarely as damning or exculpatory as people think.

View on HN

You asked for absurd, so:

Eye witness testimony is only slightly more reliable as waving purple LEDs around while chanting long words and rambling off conspiracy theories. (Which is apparently now an acceptable form of criminal investigation in the US).

Is this in reference to something?

I did not ask for absurd. I asked what they thought was absurd.

You got your answer: seriously, just do a cursory search about the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

The idea that eyewitness testimony obviates the need to examine hard evidence is absurd, given how poor people are at providing accurate eyewitness testimony. It’s not that DNA evidence is perfect, it’s that eyewitness testimony is hot garbage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com