Talk:Alibi

Keep

I think this article is important as an explaination of a technical law term, but also as a link from Long Black Veil. Pustelnik 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I created this article last night because I thought it made no sense for the crimdef template (see mistake of law) to link to a Wiktionary article. Surely there are substantive, encyclopedic comments to be made about the alibi.

I want to do the following, but I don't know how. Someone should please do it for me

• Change the name of the article Alibi to Alibi (film).
• Create or modify the disambiguation page.
• Modify the Crimdef template so that "Alibi" points to Alibi (law) and not the Wiktionary article.

It is my belief that Wikipedia should be as independent as possible, and should not rely on Wiktionary for significant topics that deserve more than a dictionary definition. YechielMan 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While it might be your belief, that's not the concensus. (See [WP:NOT#DICTIONARY]) Unless you (or someone else) can make this into an encyclopedic article, it will probably get deleted. Kathy A. 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Bearian 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2007-02-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure

Surely there are more things to say about this? Such as the need to disclose an alibi to the prosecution before trial, rather than just mentioning it half way through... Do any lawyers know more about this (and other aspects)? Malick78 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious hypocrisy

When describing religious hypocrisy, some writers have argued that religion becomes an alibi, in the sense of a source of dishonesty. The article could maybe mention the uuse of the word alibi in certain contexts like this. ADM (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Paragraph

I have removed the following unreferenced subsection from the Canadian section:

Note that in cases where a defendant is charged with multiple similar offences, allegedly committed by the same perpetrator, disclosing an alibi for any particular individual offence prematurely may actually hurt the defence. In such a situation the prosecution must rely on the fact that the defendant has no alibi for any of the alleged offences and may additionally want to show that it is extremely unlikely that this is a coincidence. This means that allowing the prosecution to reduce the list of alleged offences to the ones for which no alibi is available (see confirmation bias) may significantly weaken the defendant's case in court.

There are no references to support the above paragraph, and, to the best of my knowledge, is contrary to Canadian criminal law (which specifically prejudices the defence for late disclosure of an alibi). Singularity42 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who added the paragraph, not intending it to be part of the Canada section (but as another subsection of "Alibi Defence") and as a reminder that providing an alibi can hurt the defence. Of course I admit that, apparently, Canadian law encourages selection bias (the reference to which has been removed from the quote above) by the prosecution and therefore the issue is perhaps even more relevant in that context.

So I would like to see the paragraph restored, if you like outside the Canada section as originally intended , because the impression is now created that there are no valid (logical) reasons to withhold an alibi. The introduction to the alibi defence section in particular suggests that an alibi is like a get-out-of jail-free card, without pointing out that it can be used against the defendant just as easily (when provided prematurely, as clearly stated in my original text). It should not be hard to find many cases where selection bias based on provided alibis has led to the miscarriage of justice, but the argument is perfectly sound even without giving any specific examples. Providing examples will just open up the possibility of disputing the examples rather than the argument itself, which would be a waste of time. AlexFekken (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent to AlexFekken writing the above comments, I realized from his comments that I incorrectly copy and pasted the disputed paragraph. The error has since been fixed. I believe the missing part that is referred to is the last sentence referring to confirmation bias. Singularity42 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC) That's right, thanks for correcting that. AlexFekken (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's still a reliable source issue. I think there needs to be a reliable source that has considered the issue of how selection bias has affected alibi defence. Otherwise, while it is an interesting argument, it would still be original research. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew somebody would want to see an example anyway, so I have started looking. The first case in the Canadian list of miscarriages of justice is the Stephen Truscott case of 1959. According to this he was originally convicted mainly because of the alleged time of death of the victim. He was (much) later cleared (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_court_clears_Stephen_Truscott_of_1959_murder) because "a review of evidence [which] cast considerable doubt on the prosecution's original case such as the timing of Lynne Harper's death". Not quite the sort of case I had in mind (there was as only a single murder), but still a clear of case of moulding the evidence to the available alibi, which is my main point. And it happened in Canada as well (because of my own selection bias in looking for examples). Do you need more? AlexFekken (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually examples that are the issue. It's whether there is a reliable source. See WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Original Research. Right now, you have researched the issue (by looking for examples), and have drawn conclusions (possibly correct - I don't know enough about the issue of selection bias to say for sure). But that's original research. What you need is some reliable, secondary source that has said that selection bias can affect the decision to disclose an alibi (or even a reliable source that just says it is sometimes a good idea to not disclose an alibi). Singularity42 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also add WP:NOT#OR. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the points you are making. But if I do then I would also need a "reliable secondary source" to make a statement like "1+1=2"? I.e. I cannot rely on basic education and common sense (as a reliable source), but need to refer to (for example) a professor in mathematics to support my statement? Is that right? AlexFekken (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR#Routine calculations. Singularity42 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is close to ridiculous. I propose to (completely) amend my original text as follows to (hopefully) stay within policy:

The mandatory early disclosure of alibis is controversial, possibly even unconstitutional in some countries (see e.g. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0399_0078_ZX.html). A concrete and relatively recent example of how full disclosure of alibis can be and was actually used to mould and bias the evidence against a defendant can be found here http://www.luciadeb.nl/english/summary.html (and in further references accessible from this site). The relevant passage reads:

"...the selection of alleged incidents was extremely biased. A natural death changed into an unnatural death as soon as Lucia could be associated with it, just by her having been on the ward at the time. Conversely, an initially “suspicious” death was removed from the list as soon as it turned out that Lucia had not actually been present, after all. Concerning one alleged murder Lucia was found guilty of at the first trial, it later transpired that she had not been in the hospital for three days around the supposed event. This fact was only uncovered at the appeal. That particular “murder” immediately reverted to being a natural death; exactly what it had been, at the actual time it occurred." AlexFekken (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have referred this issue to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Alibi. Singularity42 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Sentence

As one who has previously seen a "Disputed Paragraph" removed because it was original research I must now insist that the un-sourced sentence "Since the alibi involves evidence of innocence rather then guilt, the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated" gets the same treatment. Unless and until a reliable source can be found to support the statement, of course.

In the mean time I would like to repeat that the statement is obviously false (not that that matters if a source can be found to support it, I know).

Many miscarriages of justice have been carried out as a result of the statistical illiteracy of judges and/or expert witnesses (e.g. Lucia de Berk, Sally Clark). In situations where multiple crimes are allegedly committed by the same person, the prior disclosure of alibis can be used to make the charges fit the (un)available alibis leading to extreme cases of Prosecutor's fallacy. In combination with the statistical illiteracy of said people this selection bias can go (and has gone) a long way to producing convictions for people that would have had an alibi if the charges had been defined without prior knowledge of available alibi(s). AlexFekken (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)