Evidence

In the last hundred years, the concept of “evidence” has undergone vast and confusing change. More scientific and “hard” _ good for prosecutors.  More esoteric and complex _  great for defense lawyers. And now easily faked by AI _ great for nobody. 

A typical crime in, say, 1900 had no photographs or video. No fingerprints or DNA. No trail of computer searches. Just means, opportunity, and motive. Sometimes eye witnesses, sometimes objects, but often guesswork. 

Then as now, the main clue for non-violent offenses was simple greed. The main determinant for violent crimes was relationship. Very few truly random attacks occurred. We have lived through the golden age of crime solving, although our ancient trial methodologies often ignore it. Video capture, DNA, psychiatry, written trails of past behaviors. The real problem has been how to reconcile the current near-certainty of guilt with the former “presumption of innocence.”

Of course, that all changes now. Constant surveillance, historic documents stored in media, everything can be completely manipulated and an alternate past “made real”. Proving anything. I could be convincingly shown killing my mother before I was born. 

It’s hard to predict how common sense will work out against artificial intelligence. But I am sure that in 100 years the rules of evidence we use now will seem as primitive to those then living as the rules of evidence in 1900 do to us now.