8 ms·

There should be some kind of penalty for people using methods that have zero evidence to back them up, or at least they should be forced to present accurate err

There should be some kind of penalty for people using methods that have zero evidence to back them up, or at least they should be forced to present accurate error predictions so that unproven techniques such as fingerprint analysis can be admitted, but with the likelihood of a match happening by chance.

msla 4y ago
In theory, there are two penalties that already exist: The state not getting a conviction because the defense excludes the evidence based on the Daubert standard, or, if that craps out, the defense planting a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury by pointing out that the prosecution's case is built on nothing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard > Under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
- tonmoy 4y ago
  That’s not a penalty though, if the case gets thrown out it’s just non-reward.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    If you spend several work weeks on a project and I take it out back and burn it down, we would all describe that as me doing harm to you.
    - mcbits 4y ago
      If you pay me to work on a project, you can burn it for all I care as long as the check clears.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Hell, that describes like 95% of my career.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        And if I pay you significantly less than your peers, on the theory that the work is a personal calling? https://michiganprosecutor.org/careers/current-positions/858-assistant-prosecuting-attorney-kalamazoo-county-7 https://michiganprosecutor.org/careers/current-positions/858... https://www.bcgsearch.com/bestlawfirms/KrjDr/Miller-Canfield-Paddock-and-Stone-P-L-C/salary-benefits https://www.bcgsearch.com/bestlawfirms/KrjDr/Miller-Canfield...
        mcbits 4y ago
        Then I should be subject to increased oversight and scrutiny in case I start taking kickbacks to make up the difference or botch jobs out of spite.
        torstenvl 4y ago
        One of the things I like about HN is the exposure to people with worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible with mine. It's a refreshing anti-bubble. I'm a lawyer who paid off some debt at a large firm straight out of law school, before going into government service. More than a decade later, I still don't make as much as I did when I was 24. I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine anyone making the same move if they were so motivated by money that they'd be susceptible to kickbacks.
  - msla 4y ago
    I think the bar for prosecutorial misconduct is higher than that, but maybe it should include trying to present bad science.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
giraffe_lady 4y ago
For example the method of human caging, which there is a large and growing body of research establishing does not prevent crime. https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/ https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-...
- BryantD 4y ago
  Also, if you don’t ruin someone’s life based on a false conviction, the impact of the inevitable junk science is reduced.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  This is terrible research and JSTOR should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it. > They randomly assigned criminal cases to judges within the court (in other court systems, case assignment isn’t random). If the future crime rate ended up lower for people sentenced by lenient judges than by judges who sent more people to jail, it would be clear evidence that time in jail — not any quality within the criminals themselves — was making the difference. No it does not evidence that conclusion. Judges have written sentancing guidelines. A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend. You can't disentangle that reasoning on a post hoc statistical analysis. That is pseudoscience. > the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial. The article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system. We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses. That conclusion from JSTOR has no evidence and flies in the face of any sane reasoning. They didn't even questionnaire the re-offenders!
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    It's really easy to do the reflexive HN contrarian takedown on pretty much any single piece of work if you're motivated to do so. This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. If you're interested you could look into this entire domain of research and see what it suggests.
partdavid 4y ago
I don't see how stuff like this isn't fraud. I mean, if I gave money to someone, and they told me they would teach me how to cultivate magic beans that would make me happy or rich; and then it turned out that they don't know such a technique, and can't teach it (because it doesn't exist). I see how people get away with this as pundits or advocates because the money involved is indirect (they are lying for position or notoriety, not directly taking someone's money) but teaching a fake science "technique" for money? How is it different than selling snake oil?
8note 4y ago
A jury isn't particularly going to understand what those likelihoods are. People are really bad with probability
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  Well that can either be dealt with be educating the particular jury or if that's not feasible then maybe trial by jury isn't applicable if they are unable to understand the evidence provided.

msla 4y ago

In theory, there are two penalties that already exist: The state not getting a conviction because the defense excludes the evidence based on the Daubert standard, or, if that craps out, the defense planting a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury by pointing out that the prosecution's case is built on nothing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard > Under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

tonmoy 4y ago
That’s not a penalty though, if the case gets thrown out it’s just non-reward.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  If you spend several work weeks on a project and I take it out back and burn it down, we would all describe that as me doing harm to you.
  - mcbits 4y ago
    If you pay me to work on a project, you can burn it for all I care as long as the check clears.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Hell, that describes like 95% of my career.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      And if I pay you significantly less than your peers, on the theory that the work is a personal calling? https://michiganprosecutor.org/careers/current-positions/858-assistant-prosecuting-attorney-kalamazoo-county-7 https://michiganprosecutor.org/careers/current-positions/858... https://www.bcgsearch.com/bestlawfirms/KrjDr/Miller-Canfield-Paddock-and-Stone-P-L-C/salary-benefits https://www.bcgsearch.com/bestlawfirms/KrjDr/Miller-Canfield...
      - mcbits 4y ago
        Then I should be subject to increased oversight and scrutiny in case I start taking kickbacks to make up the difference or botch jobs out of spite.
        torstenvl 4y ago
        One of the things I like about HN is the exposure to people with worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible with mine. It's a refreshing anti-bubble. I'm a lawyer who paid off some debt at a large firm straight out of law school, before going into government service. More than a decade later, I still don't make as much as I did when I was 24. I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine anyone making the same move if they were so motivated by money that they'd be susceptible to kickbacks.
- msla 4y ago
  I think the bar for prosecutorial misconduct is higher than that, but maybe it should include trying to present bad science.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

giraffe_lady 4y ago

For example the method of human caging, which there is a large and growing body of research establishing does not prevent crime. https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/ https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-...

BryantD 4y ago
Also, if you don’t ruin someone’s life based on a false conviction, the impact of the inevitable junk science is reduced.
vorpalhex 4y ago
This is terrible research and JSTOR should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it. > They randomly assigned criminal cases to judges within the court (in other court systems, case assignment isn’t random). If the future crime rate ended up lower for people sentenced by lenient judges than by judges who sent more people to jail, it would be clear evidence that time in jail — not any quality within the criminals themselves — was making the difference. No it does not evidence that conclusion. Judges have written sentancing guidelines. A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend. You can't disentangle that reasoning on a post hoc statistical analysis. That is pseudoscience. > the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial. The article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system. We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses. That conclusion from JSTOR has no evidence and flies in the face of any sane reasoning. They didn't even questionnaire the re-offenders!
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's really easy to do the reflexive HN contrarian takedown on pretty much any single piece of work if you're motivated to do so. This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. If you're interested you could look into this entire domain of research and see what it suggests.

partdavid 4y ago

I don't see how stuff like this isn't fraud. I mean, if I gave money to someone, and they told me they would teach me how to cultivate magic beans that would make me happy or rich; and then it turned out that they don't know such a technique, and can't teach it (because it doesn't exist). I see how people get away with this as pundits or advocates because the money involved is indirect (they are lying for position or notoriety, not directly taking someone's money) but teaching a fake science "technique" for money? How is it different than selling snake oil?

8note 4y ago

A jury isn't particularly going to understand what those likelihoods are. People are really bad with probability

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
Well that can either be dealt with be educating the particular jury or if that's not feasible then maybe trial by jury isn't applicable if they are unable to understand the evidence provided.