3 ms·
I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convict
by badrabbit 7y ago
I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convicted wrongly can't be tolerated. It's not a question of which statistical measurement is better but which approach society is willig to accept.
- naasking 7y ago> I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convicted wrongly can't be tolerated. You can't guarantee a 0% false conviction rate even when requiring unanimity. That's why I said if the false conviction rate was the same, but the true conviction rate was better, clearly that's a better scenario.
- badrabbit 7y agoYou can't and you won't try to. You leave it to the quality of jurors in the locality,allow maximim number of jurors(practically limited) and unanimity. False conviction rate at 11/12 guilty verdict can be 90% in NYC and 40% in rural alabama for example and it can change ovet time based on population change. Someone needs to keep track of the stats, their methods will need oversight and what happens when bad politicians want high conviction rates, influence the stats measurement? Will be gerrymandering all over again.