alt Hacker NewsOkay thanks, so here's what I don't understand. When there is video evidence that someone was in their house the whole time, and given that everyone who has used a GPS knows it can easily be inaccurate by 30ft, why in the world would the judge trust the ankle monitor accuracy over video footage they see with their own eyes that directly contradicts it?
Something about this just doesn't seem very plausible, especially if this kind of thing is happening more than once in a blue moon. Either the video evidence is not as convincing as we're being led to assume (thus leaving more doubt in the judge's mind than ours, even if the person is innocent), or there should be some other explanation.
Replies
I don't know what to tell you besides yes, it's really that bad. A lot of it is just people passing the buck down the road, a lot of it (at the time) was covid, a lot of it was the difficulty of people on EM to publicly talk about their situation. Defense attorneys just want to get their clients out of jail and a lot of the EM stuff is a distraction to that. It's very much a, "we'll put in a ticket" sort of situation across many moving parts.
Lawyers began telling their clients to film themselves in their homes at all times so that they could prove to judges that they were in their homes when the devices went off. That's advice they give because the risks of not doing that are going back into jail. And to prove all that, you still have to go through all that process, filming yourself, etc. It's truly bad.
Everyone knows video footage can be faked. Why would the judge ever trust video provided by the defendant over serious professional technology like GPS? Might as well just take their word for it!
What’s funny here is that you are displaying misplaced trust in the justice system that exactly parallels my hypothetical judge’s misplaced trust in technology.