4 ms·

If I'm a juror, and the evidence presented happens to have a false positive rate of 1%, that certainly meets my understanding of "a reasonable doubt."

by badRNG 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago
I would need a very very big pile of very clear cut evidence to find someone guilty of a crime where the likely outcome is a substantial prison time. It's all tradeoffs, but "his blood was found on the murder weapon" wouldn't be sufficient for me - some childhood enemy could easily have planted a bunch of forensic evidence next to a crime scene.
- michaelt 6y ago
  Unfortunately, the vast majority of crimes don't produce evidence that rises to the level you call for. After all, if my next door neighbour barged into my house and beat me up, the only evidence would be my visible injuries and my statement that it was my neighbour. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a society where he would be convicted, or where he wouldn't.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    Maybe your neighbour has a nicer car than you which makes you feel insecure so you decide to beat yourself up and go to the police saying your neighbour did it. Considering that possibility, I don't want to put your neighbour in prison.
    - michaelt 6y ago
      And presumably, if having been denied justice I pursue revenge instead, I can barge into his home and beat him up, as he did to me, and avoid punishment for the same reason? While I admire your devotion to Blackstone's Ratio, this doesn't seem like a recipe for stability and rule of law to me.
Nightshaxx 6y ago
A murderer kills less than 1% of all the people they meet. Does that mean we should just accept their behavior?
- slickQ 6y ago
  A murderer who kills 1% of the people he meets has certainly committed a crime. A person who has a 99% chance of being a murderer has not certainly committed a crime. That is depending on your threshold of certainty. 1% is not that high considering that, according to the OJJDP, 5 milion people were arrested for serious charges in 2019 so with a 1% false positive rate that would be 100,000 people falsely imprisoned every year. It does not have to be and really can't be 0% but 1% is unreasonably high in my opinion. If it can't be helped then it can't be helped but that isn't necessarily the case with these devices.
  - Nightshaxx 6y ago
    The doctor did not have the _potential_ to fake evidence. He _did_ fake evidence.
throwaway2245 6y ago
Is it bad that I'd guess you would be excluded from a jury if you admitted this upfront?

If I'm a juror, and the evidence presented happens to have a false positive rate of 1%, that certainly meets my understanding of "a reasonable doubt."

by badRNG 6y ago

If I'm a juror, and the evidence presented happens to have a false positive rate of 1%, that certainly meets my understanding of "a reasonable doubt."

londons_explore 6y ago

I would need a very very big pile of very clear cut evidence to find someone guilty of a crime where the likely outcome is a substantial prison time. It's all tradeoffs, but "his blood was found on the murder weapon" wouldn't be sufficient for me - some childhood enemy could easily have planted a bunch of forensic evidence next to a crime scene.

michaelt 6y ago
Unfortunately, the vast majority of crimes don't produce evidence that rises to the level you call for. After all, if my next door neighbour barged into my house and beat me up, the only evidence would be my visible injuries and my statement that it was my neighbour. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a society where he would be convicted, or where he wouldn't.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Maybe your neighbour has a nicer car than you which makes you feel insecure so you decide to beat yourself up and go to the police saying your neighbour did it. Considering that possibility, I don't want to put your neighbour in prison.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    And presumably, if having been denied justice I pursue revenge instead, I can barge into his home and beat him up, as he did to me, and avoid punishment for the same reason? While I admire your devotion to Blackstone's Ratio, this doesn't seem like a recipe for stability and rule of law to me.

Nightshaxx 6y ago

A murderer kills less than 1% of all the people they meet. Does that mean we should just accept their behavior?

slickQ 6y ago
A murderer who kills 1% of the people he meets has certainly committed a crime. A person who has a 99% chance of being a murderer has not certainly committed a crime. That is depending on your threshold of certainty. 1% is not that high considering that, according to the OJJDP, 5 milion people were arrested for serious charges in 2019 so with a 1% false positive rate that would be 100,000 people falsely imprisoned every year. It does not have to be and really can't be 0% but 1% is unreasonably high in my opinion. If it can't be helped then it can't be helped but that isn't necessarily the case with these devices.
- Nightshaxx 6y ago
  The doctor did not have the _potential_ to fake evidence. He _did_ fake evidence.

throwaway2245 6y ago

Is it bad that I'd guess you would be excluded from a jury if you admitted this upfront?