4 ms·

In that case, and assuming (1) the correctness of angdis' contention that criminals are found not guilty more often than justice is served and (2) a conviction

by dghf 11y ago

In that case, and assuming (1) the correctness of angdis' contention that criminals are found not guilty more often than justice is served and (2) a conviction rate of at least two-thirds in the court system he/she is talking about (which is not a high bar), there are more wrongful convictions than correct ones.

frobozz 11y ago
Yes, given 9 cases, and 3 wrongful acquittals, the remaining 6 guilty verdicts can have at most 2 instances of justice being done (i.e. true positives), meaning that the remaining 4 are false convictions. If any of those acquittals were the correct result, then even more people need to do porridge in order to make angdis' assertion correct. I'm not saying that angdis isn't wrong, just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point. In fact, as I stated in my first response, proving the assertion requires information that one simply couldn't have, i.e. a chart of actual guilt vs verdict. Plenty of guilty convicts will protest their innocence, and no one, having been acquitted, will then go on to say, "Well, actually, I did it, so long suckers!" I'd add that, as you point out, this is a pretty outrageous claim, so the burden of proof truly lies with the one making it. In fact, I've oversimplified, because there was actually another clause in angdis' original assertion, "or guilty and given probation (nothing)", this adds another set of results to the group that makes up the "more than justice" list: any probation sentence, which could be an appropriate sentence for the convict (which is justice, so it cancels out), repeat offenders being found guilty of a crime of which they are innocent, but sentenced appropriately for the charge (not justice, but also still a guilty verdict) or inappropriately lenient ( not justice). By making the latter claim, one is declaring oneself a greater authority on sentencing and its goals and outcomes than the judges whose business it is to know all about sentencing. This means that false guilty verdicts for minor crimes could still go on the left, if the accused is a criminal.
dghf 11y ago
[Replying to myself r/than frozbozz as I seem to have hit some kind of nesting limit.] > just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point It's more that I'm questioning the interpretation you've put on angdis' initial comment. Your logic is impeccable, but it leads to conclusions that are so at odds with the tone of his/her post that I feel you are crediting him/her with too much coherence and consistency.

by dghf 11y ago

frobozz 11y ago

Yes, given 9 cases, and 3 wrongful acquittals, the remaining 6 guilty verdicts can have at most 2 instances of justice being done (i.e. true positives), meaning that the remaining 4 are false convictions. If any of those acquittals were the correct result, then even more people need to do porridge in order to make angdis' assertion correct. I'm not saying that angdis isn't wrong, just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point. In fact, as I stated in my first response, proving the assertion requires information that one simply couldn't have, i.e. a chart of actual guilt vs verdict. Plenty of guilty convicts will protest their innocence, and no one, having been acquitted, will then go on to say, "Well, actually, I did it, so long suckers!" I'd add that, as you point out, this is a pretty outrageous claim, so the burden of proof truly lies with the one making it. In fact, I've oversimplified, because there was actually another clause in angdis' original assertion, "or guilty and given probation (nothing)", this adds another set of results to the group that makes up the "more than justice" list: any probation sentence, which could be an appropriate sentence for the convict (which is justice, so it cancels out), repeat offenders being found guilty of a crime of which they are innocent, but sentenced appropriately for the charge (not justice, but also still a guilty verdict) or inappropriately lenient ( not justice). By making the latter claim, one is declaring oneself a greater authority on sentencing and its goals and outcomes than the judges whose business it is to know all about sentencing. This means that false guilty verdicts for minor crimes could still go on the left, if the accused is a criminal.

dghf 11y ago

[Replying to myself r/than frozbozz as I seem to have hit some kind of nesting limit.] > just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point It's more that I'm questioning the interpretation you've put on angdis' initial comment. Your logic is impeccable, but it leads to conclusions that are so at odds with the tone of his/her post that I feel you are crediting him/her with too much coherence and consistency.