2. The documentarians omit, while the police fabricate. The documentarians are not mirroring the entity they set out to indict.
3. 3 to 4 days is not a terribly long time for a jury to deliberate on a case like this.
For example:
- prosecution presents first. (Google Anchoring, Confirmation Bias)
- police are allowed to lie to witnesses to extract confessions, along with many other psychological tricks
- prosecutorial immunity
- election of prosecutors based on conviction rate
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There are lots of problems with our legal system. This isn't one of them.
But if we're thinking more broadly about how the system could be reformed, we should remember that there are more than two options here. For example, The defense could present first and then have an opportunity for rebuttal after the prosecution presents its case. I'm not sure this would be near the top of my list of proposed criminal justice reforms, though.
IMO, the real bias is expert witnesses get preselected and paid, so they tend to favor a specific side. This has allowed a lot of pseudoscience to be shown a trial and enter the literature. Forensic science is rarely validated because that’s just not its job.
Consider, two people that compare hair samples, but one always supports the prosecutors case. Now, which one do you think gets more work? When someone says something is inconclusive that's it they not going to get paid to show up at the trial just there initial 'investigation'.
And this is as terrifying as the fact that experts are selected specifically to support the side that pays them. Expert witnesses should probably be selected and paid by the court, which would at least help a bit. But the pseudoscience stuff horrifies me. The whole hair comparison thing is bunk and a lot of people were put in jail on the supposed strength of this "science". Ditto for so many other forensic "sciences".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
Though, if it has a positive effect, it seems like it would be a cheap and easy reform to make. I think it's pretty reasonable that the defense be the first to speak and the last to speak to the jury in a criminal trial, even if its gets extra timeslots compared to the prosecution.
How else would you do this? There is a presumption of innocence; the defendant needs to defend against the arguments made by the prosecution.
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Prefa...
Not enough, in my opinion. Watch this PBS show about the story of Cameron Todd Willingham, put to death by Texas for the arson-murder of his three little girls: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/
The sole basis of conviction was arson science, and as the PBS show explains it isn't much of a science at all. This is a sad story of an innocent man put to death by the state of Texas.
Five years later, with a Texas commission working inexorably toward a formal acknowledgment that the state had executed an innocent man — surely a watershed in the history of American capital punishment — Governor Rick Perry pulled a bureaucratic maneuver that effectively stopped the investigation in its tracks. More on that here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-cameron-todd...
The point, as I see it, is that you need to also identify your source for your believe that the police fabricated. Is it entirely informed by the documentary? If so, then that's circular logic. If you believe the police fabricated evidence because of the documentary in question, then it's hardly a defense against the charge the documentary manipulated opinion through the careful curation of presented evidence.
Personally, regardless of specific opinion, I'm a little startled at how many people here are using just the documentary to explain their view that the police obviously fabricated evidence, which is then used as evidence that the article in question, regarding the trustworthiness of the documentary in question, has less merit. It's disconcerting, but hopefully it's just a case of people not explaining their other sources of information.
The presumption of innocence is different than only hearing one side of the story. And in journalism you aren't supposed to operate with blatant bias.
Like the article explains, we allow the defense to zealously advocate because there is another side to counter it.