5 ms·
To be fair, the American justice system is not the only one: > Clark's first son died suddenly in December 1996 within a few weeks of his birth, and in January
by isolli 8y ago
To be fair, the American justice system is not the only one:
> Clark's first son died suddenly in December 1996 within a few weeks of his birth, and in January 1998 her second died in a similar manner. A month later, she was arrested and tried for both of the deaths. The prosecution case relied on significantly flawed statistical evidence presented by paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering sudden infant death syndrome was 1 in 73 million. He had arrived at this figure erroneously by squaring 1 in 8500, as being the likelihood of a cot death in similar circumstances. The Royal Statistical Society later issued a statement arguing that there was "no statistical basis" for Meadow's claim, and expressing its concern at the "misuse of statistics in the courts".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
- mikestew 8y agowho testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering sudden infant death syndrome was 1 in 73 million. Even if he's wrong, using just the wrong stats says, well, in a country of >300 million (such as the U. S.) that's going to happen once in a while. Even a smaller country like the U. K., my response would be, "so it could happen, and it wouldn’t be all that outlandish for a case to crop over the course of, say, decades?" OTOH, I don't care if the odds are 1 in 73 gazillionbillion, it could happen and the prosecution still needs to prove otherwise. We're not playing craps here.
- ip26 8y agoNot to mention there's usually hidden patterns we just haven't uncovered. Some gene or household chemical or simple behavior that skews the odds. Thus at a population level the aggregate risk might be 1 in 73 million, but for this individual it's 1 in a billion and for that one it's 1 in 10 thousand. We just don't know it, because we don't know all the risk factors. It's like insurance. You might be a really safe cautious driver, and your friend a nutcase. But your insurance doesn't really know who is a nutjob predisposed to accidents ahead of time.
- rhino369 8y agoExactly, SIDS isn't purely random. There are variables nobody knew about (and many we still don't know about). Babies were suffocating on blankets, mattress padding, dolls, etc. There was probably something dangerous about the baby's crib that was undetectable.
- pmoriarty 8y ago"OTOH, I don't care if the odds are 1 in 73 gazillionbillion, it could happen and the prosecution still needs to prove otherwise. We're not playing craps here." But it's not a mathematical proof. They only have to convince a jury, which is often not that hard.