7 ms·
I was convinced beyond reasonable doubt, having phone records that matched rather well with testimonies. I also might have fixated on it and ignored chance, but
by stepvhen 10y ago
I was convinced beyond reasonable doubt, having phone records that matched rather well with testimonies. I also might have fixated on it and ignored chance, but that's why there are 12 jurors.
- jstanley 10y agoIf someone on HN ignores the statistics, what are the chances that the other jurors paid any attention to statistics?
- stonecraftwolf 10y agoReasonable doubt is not defined in terms of statistical confidence.
- nitrogen 10y agoMaybe it should be.
- abritinthebay 10y agoBased on most of the posts here I'd say "someone on HN" is just as likely - if not more, due to misplaced confidence - to ignore statistics.
- lucb1e 10y agoOr all humans fall victim to largely the same kinds of fallacies. That's why there is no jury in all countries that I know of except America. I'm not sure if a jury is a bad idea, when I first learned of it, I kinda liked the idea, but I'm worried about this kind of reasoning...
- piptastic 10y agoWhat do other countries do? Is the decision made by one person that has these same fallacies? At least the risk is spread out some in the jury situation.
- burkaman 10y agoOther countries definitely use juries, just not as universally as the US. They more often just have a judge or a panel of judges, or sometimes a sort of jury that includes judges.
- antris 10y agoProper training alleviates these fallacies. I trust a judge much better than a jury of random people.
- yompers888 10y agoOn the other hand, the random jury doesn't have the same perverse incentives and web of relationships that support conviction.
- r00fus 10y agoWould you still trust that judge that was elected to office with lobbyist money?
- burkaman 10y agoI think electing judges might also be a uniquely American thing, and less than half the country does it. It's a much weirder practice than using juries. Obviously you can still say a judge was appointed by people elected with lobbyist money, but it's not that direct.
- lucb1e 10y agoMight be my lack of knowledge in the subject, but I've never heard of electing judges. Isn't it just a study and a background check or so, at least in western Europe?
- burkaman 10y agoNot only do some states have elections, but they have partisan elections, which is just obviously a dumb idea. I have no idea how it works in other countries, but in most US states judges are either elected by the legislature or appointed by the governor.
- seren 10y agoThis page contains a list of countries using Jury in various way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury
- dragonwriter 10y ago> That's why there is no jury in all countries that I know of except America. The UK uses juries in much the same way as the US does, as do many other countries whose legal systems derives from that of the UK (which are a fair number, because colonialism.)
- zepto 10y agoDid any of the other jurors calculate the probability of the result being by chance?