6 ms·

One fascinating part of this story is Göran Lambertz, who was chancellor of justice during the trials and is now a supreme court judge. https://en.wikipedia.or

by mbrock 11y ago

One fascinating part of this story is Göran Lambertz, who was chancellor of justice during the trials and is now a supreme court judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lambertz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lambertz He fervently maintains that Quick is indeed guilty, and that there was nothing at all wrong with the proceedings of the justice system. In fact he claims, to this day as far as I know, that the evidence against Quick is "extraordinarily convincing." While a supreme court judge, this spring he released a 502-page book "Quickologi" which he presents as a thorough debunking of the notions of Quick's innocence and any suggestion of a scandal. That's all a bunch of politics, but around here what should be more interesting is Lambertz's interpretation of probability. In chapter 15 of his book, he performs a calculation of the evidence that Quick is guilty—and arrives at a probability of 183%. He concludes this from a chain of reasoning that involves adding contingent probabilities in a wildly spurious way. After a professor of mathematics described exactly how ludicrous this is in a blog post... http://haggstrom.blogspot.se/2015/05/quickologisk-sannolikhetskalkyl.html http://haggstrom.blogspot.se/2015/05/quickologisk-sannolikhe... ...Lambertz replied on his own blog saying that he was eagerly awaiting such a rebuttal, since his aim was to "provoke a discussion." In other words, the chancellor of justice responsible at the time of this case, this current supreme court judge, is a blog troll who uses fraudulent statistics to intentionally misrepresent the relevant evidence. So, yeah. I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert.

PeterWhittaker 11y ago
I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert. Upvoted for that one line alone. Brilliant.
chris_wot 11y ago
Isn't Sweden the country that was trying to extradite Julian Assange? If their Supreme Court judges can come up with probabilities greater than 100%, then I seriously fear for their justice system!
- purplelobster 11y ago
  Hey, at least they're trying to use math! ;) It does make me fear for our justice system, but people are people, and I've realized they're no different anywhere really. The right education can limit our faults but only to a degree. I also believe that the government very likely has been influenced by American lobbying in the Assange case. The U.S. Is Sweden's largest export outside the EU, and obviously a large importer as well, therefore highly susceptible to pressure.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    If they are using Mathematics to make court judgements (which granted, he's not...but he's still a judicial officer making comments about an going case) then it would behoove him to know that probability can only ever be measured between 0 and 1. That's the most OBVIOUS thing about probability I can imagine!
- krig 11y ago
  I'm not going to comment on the Assange case itself since I don't know the details, I'm not a lawyer, and there's so much misinformation out there that it must be almost impossible even for the prosecutors to keep track of what "the case" actually is, but... indeed, the swedish justice system is in many ways archaic. I guess unjust is the best word to describe it. Basically, it's a system that has evolved over time in a country with such low crime rates that simply being charged for a crime in itself is enough to make you guilty in the eyes of the court. If I'm not mistaken, I think Japan has a similar situation, and Japanese and Swedish culture seem strangely similar in other ways too. At least to this swede.
  - mbrock 11y ago
    Swedish drug policy is also seriously unjust, according to the UN's Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://www.thelocal.se/20151108/un-swedish-drug-policy-violates-human-rights http://www.thelocal.se/20151108/un-swedish-drug-policy-viola... > Sweden has one of the EU's most restrictive drug policies, with zero tolerance for drug use and possession. At the same time, the rate of drug-induced deaths is among the highest in the union, and they are on the rise. > [...] Only six out of Sweden's 290 municipalities offer needle exchange [...] > "We always look at Sweden as a very advanced country with the most progressive policies, and I was surprised to see that it lags behind a number of other countries in terms of its policies on drugs," deputy high commissioner for human rights Flavia Pansieri told SVT.
StavrosK 11y ago
> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability. If you can be double guilty of something then does that mean you get to serve two sentences for the same crime too?
  - Turbo_hedgehog 11y ago
    Think you missed the tongue-in-cheekiness of the post you replied to.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Aw, I didn't think I'd need the detestable "/s", Jacques :(
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Hehe, ok then. You had me wondering there.
      - _0ffh 11y ago
        And Poe's law strikes again...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - 11y ago
da1 11y ago
> So, yeah. I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert. I highly recommend going to a courtroom and just observe a trial. The level of dishonesty, stupidity and incompetence is tremendous. At the jurisdiction where I did that trials have all audio recorded. I saw the judge asking to stop the recording, basically saying out loud that the defendant was guilty because he felt it (basically he was creepy), resume the recording and then make some bullshit excuse to validate what he already had decided on a hunch. I never had much respect for people involved with the law. I lost whatever little respect I had left that day. I was actually recording audio (probably illegal and criminal) so at home I confirmed it just in case I was under some kind of delusion.
- MistahKoala 11y ago
  Why didn't you anonymously leak it?
  - da1 11y ago
    Because I was identified before getting in and I was the only person not involved in the trial there. I would be in serious trouble. That laptop's disk went kaput so eventually I lost it (this might have been 6 years ago). I did come back but never heard anything that outrageous. When the judge says "stop recording" my heart sank because I realized that recordings were not an accurate description of what happened there. Recently I read about a case where a judge convicted a witness, just like that. Eventually it was overturned but now that judge is at the European Court of Human Rights. Convicting the witness without an extra trial is far more serious and nothing came out of it... Edit: Court name was wrong.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      That can only mean it was Helena Jäderblom. There is only one judge from each country :-) but that's dreadful!
- vijayr 11y ago
  It is amazing that so many societies in the world are able to function well, considering the pathetic nature of their legal systems.

by mbrock 11y ago

PeterWhittaker 11y ago

I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert. Upvoted for that one line alone. Brilliant.

chris_wot 11y ago

Isn't Sweden the country that was trying to extradite Julian Assange? If their Supreme Court judges can come up with probabilities greater than 100%, then I seriously fear for their justice system!

purplelobster 11y ago
Hey, at least they're trying to use math! ;) It does make me fear for our justice system, but people are people, and I've realized they're no different anywhere really. The right education can limit our faults but only to a degree. I also believe that the government very likely has been influenced by American lobbying in the Assange case. The U.S. Is Sweden's largest export outside the EU, and obviously a large importer as well, therefore highly susceptible to pressure.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  If they are using Mathematics to make court judgements (which granted, he's not...but he's still a judicial officer making comments about an going case) then it would behoove him to know that probability can only ever be measured between 0 and 1. That's the most OBVIOUS thing about probability I can imagine!
krig 11y ago
I'm not going to comment on the Assange case itself since I don't know the details, I'm not a lawyer, and there's so much misinformation out there that it must be almost impossible even for the prosecutors to keep track of what "the case" actually is, but... indeed, the swedish justice system is in many ways archaic. I guess unjust is the best word to describe it. Basically, it's a system that has evolved over time in a country with such low crime rates that simply being charged for a crime in itself is enough to make you guilty in the eyes of the court. If I'm not mistaken, I think Japan has a similar situation, and Japanese and Swedish culture seem strangely similar in other ways too. At least to this swede.
- mbrock 11y ago
  Swedish drug policy is also seriously unjust, according to the UN's Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://www.thelocal.se/20151108/un-swedish-drug-policy-violates-human-rights http://www.thelocal.se/20151108/un-swedish-drug-policy-viola... > Sweden has one of the EU's most restrictive drug policies, with zero tolerance for drug use and possession. At the same time, the rate of drug-induced deaths is among the highest in the union, and they are on the rise. > [...] Only six out of Sweden's 290 municipalities offer needle exchange [...] > "We always look at Sweden as a very advanced country with the most progressive policies, and I was surprised to see that it lags behind a number of other countries in terms of its policies on drugs," deputy high commissioner for human rights Flavia Pansieri told SVT.

StavrosK 11y ago

> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

jacquesm 11y ago
If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability. If you can be double guilty of something then does that mean you get to serve two sentences for the same crime too?
- Turbo_hedgehog 11y ago
  Think you missed the tongue-in-cheekiness of the post you replied to.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Aw, I didn't think I'd need the detestable "/s", Jacques :(
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Hehe, ok then. You had me wondering there.
    - _0ffh 11y ago
      And Poe's law strikes again...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 11y ago

da1 11y ago

> So, yeah. I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert. I highly recommend going to a courtroom and just observe a trial. The level of dishonesty, stupidity and incompetence is tremendous. At the jurisdiction where I did that trials have all audio recorded. I saw the judge asking to stop the recording, basically saying out loud that the defendant was guilty because he felt it (basically he was creepy), resume the recording and then make some bullshit excuse to validate what he already had decided on a hunch. I never had much respect for people involved with the law. I lost whatever little respect I had left that day. I was actually recording audio (probably illegal and criminal) so at home I confirmed it just in case I was under some kind of delusion.

MistahKoala 11y ago
Why didn't you anonymously leak it?
- da1 11y ago
  Because I was identified before getting in and I was the only person not involved in the trial there. I would be in serious trouble. That laptop's disk went kaput so eventually I lost it (this might have been 6 years ago). I did come back but never heard anything that outrageous. When the judge says "stop recording" my heart sank because I realized that recordings were not an accurate description of what happened there. Recently I read about a case where a judge convicted a witness, just like that. Eventually it was overturned but now that judge is at the European Court of Human Rights. Convicting the witness without an extra trial is far more serious and nothing came out of it... Edit: Court name was wrong.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    That can only mean it was Helena Jäderblom. There is only one judge from each country :-) but that's dreadful!
vijayr 11y ago
It is amazing that so many societies in the world are able to function well, considering the pathetic nature of their legal systems.