4 ms·

Your 2nd idea is a fascinating one. The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. It might still

Your 2nd idea is a fascinating one. The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. It might still need some threshold of certainty to stop harassment or gaming the system with a lot of low-probability cases that are easy to fabricate. Your first idea would have a problem in that people who's job is to convict people will accumulate that risk the longer they work. By chance, they're bound to get it wrong from time to time so it would unfairly punish those with the longest careers.

vishnugupta 11y ago
>....people who's job is to convict people .... This, right here, is the heart of the matter for me. If we have people whose job is to convict people then they'll do whatever it takes, not necessarily serve justice or do the right thing, to convict anyone coming their way. However, if you change the job goal to "reduce crime rate", or some such metric, then they would at least try to do what's fair.
- simonh 11y ago
  This is essentially the difference between an adversarial as against an inquisitorial system such as in France, Italy and others.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
> The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. This is not true at all, at least in the US. One of the core differences between criminal and civil cases is the burden of proof; the former requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", while for the latter it is "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" depending on the case. The definitions of these terms are not laser precise (I'm not sure how they could be), but there is at least a recognized role that the non-binary degree to which the evidence is convincing plays.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The high bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is incre4dibly important, and a lot of people end up being distracted by concepts like efficiency, when the very basis of our legal system is that it isn't supposed to be efficient or "unbiased". It is intended to be explicitly biased against the state, so any of these probabilistic "gray" are a burden the state must overcome. Yes, this means we sometimes let some truly despicable people walk away without being punished. That's the point. While the devil is in the details, "reasonable" is a decent bar. We don't have to entertain every possibility. If your defense is that space-aliens made you do it, nobody is going to find that "reasonable". On the other hand, if you defense is at least a plausible alternative interpretation of the facts, I would consider that a "reasonable doubt". As we will always have a margin of error in complex human interactions, we have to decide if we want to err on the side of vengeance even when it affects innocent people, or if we want to protect the innocent even when it also involves giving protection to the guilty. It is at these boundary cases where concepts like "freedom" is tested. If we only give the protections of a "free" society to the people that don't need it while ignoring rights and due process when it is convenient (trials are expensive), then any claim about being a civilized are merely dishonest marketing.
  - iofj 11y ago
    Meanwhile ... the government is hard at work reducing the available time a judge has to consider a case. It's down to hours on average, for complex cases, minutes (not even tens of minutes) for "simple" cases (ie. < 2 weeks jail). This forces judges to have an attitude along the lines of first offence -> warning plus fine if more than 1 week jail time, second offence -> same, but rescind driver license for a time as well, offence during driver license rescinded -> jail time. It is simply not possible to consider subtlety like ... oh, say, the actual case the government has under those rules. But of course, because the government has been so successful in reducing time spent per case, at this point, giving judges an hour per case minimum would involve increasing the size of the justice system tenfold, maybe more.
- graycat 11y ago
  > "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" Not if I'm on the jury.
DonaldFisk 11y ago
There's a difference between (1) securing a conviction on the basis of evidence which was compelling at the time of the trial but was, perhaps many years later, proven to be faulty, and (2) doing something improper to secure a conviction you know is wrongful. Prosecutors should not be punished for (1) but should be punished for (2), in proportion to the seriousness of their misdeed and the sentence handed down (or served if they own up before the prisoner is released).

vishnugupta 11y ago

>....people who's job is to convict people .... This, right here, is the heart of the matter for me. If we have people whose job is to convict people then they'll do whatever it takes, not necessarily serve justice or do the right thing, to convict anyone coming their way. However, if you change the job goal to "reduce crime rate", or some such metric, then they would at least try to do what's fair.

simonh 11y ago
This is essentially the difference between an adversarial as against an inquisitorial system such as in France, Italy and others.

johncolanduoni 11y ago

> The legal system has a weird binary concept of "proof" that doesn't exist anywhere else except perhaps maths. This is not true at all, at least in the US. One of the core differences between criminal and civil cases is the burden of proof; the former requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", while for the latter it is "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" depending on the case. The definitions of these terms are not laser precise (I'm not sure how they could be), but there is at least a recognized role that the non-binary degree to which the evidence is convincing plays.

pdkl95 11y ago
The high bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is incre4dibly important, and a lot of people end up being distracted by concepts like efficiency, when the very basis of our legal system is that it isn't supposed to be efficient or "unbiased". It is intended to be explicitly biased against the state, so any of these probabilistic "gray" are a burden the state must overcome. Yes, this means we sometimes let some truly despicable people walk away without being punished. That's the point. While the devil is in the details, "reasonable" is a decent bar. We don't have to entertain every possibility. If your defense is that space-aliens made you do it, nobody is going to find that "reasonable". On the other hand, if you defense is at least a plausible alternative interpretation of the facts, I would consider that a "reasonable doubt". As we will always have a margin of error in complex human interactions, we have to decide if we want to err on the side of vengeance even when it affects innocent people, or if we want to protect the innocent even when it also involves giving protection to the guilty. It is at these boundary cases where concepts like "freedom" is tested. If we only give the protections of a "free" society to the people that don't need it while ignoring rights and due process when it is convenient (trials are expensive), then any claim about being a civilized are merely dishonest marketing.
- iofj 11y ago
  Meanwhile ... the government is hard at work reducing the available time a judge has to consider a case. It's down to hours on average, for complex cases, minutes (not even tens of minutes) for "simple" cases (ie. < 2 weeks jail). This forces judges to have an attitude along the lines of first offence -> warning plus fine if more than 1 week jail time, second offence -> same, but rescind driver license for a time as well, offence during driver license rescinded -> jail time. It is simply not possible to consider subtlety like ... oh, say, the actual case the government has under those rules. But of course, because the government has been so successful in reducing time spent per case, at this point, giving judges an hour per case minimum would involve increasing the size of the justice system tenfold, maybe more.
graycat 11y ago
> "the preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" Not if I'm on the jury.

DonaldFisk 11y ago

There's a difference between (1) securing a conviction on the basis of evidence which was compelling at the time of the trial but was, perhaps many years later, proven to be faulty, and (2) doing something improper to secure a conviction you know is wrongful. Prosecutors should not be punished for (1) but should be punished for (2), in proportion to the seriousness of their misdeed and the sentence handed down (or served if they own up before the prisoner is released).