5 ms·

As purely factual matter do you believe that most people arrested have or haven’t actually committed a crime?

giantg2 3y ago
How does that apply? I don't think there's a good way to measure that. If you go by conviction rate, it's something like 75% +/-10% depending on jurisdiction and grading. Then you'd have to adjust for the 2-10% of wrongful convictions for the incarcerated. Then adjust for the people who commited a crime but were not convicted, but I haven't seen stats on that.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  How does that apply? Even if we all agree that minimizing type I errors (false positives) is of paramount importance, the optimal design of the system depends heavily on the true positive rate at the top of the funnel.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    But then you need to go a step higher and look at how many crimes have been cleared. Even if we have a high true positive rate at the arrest stage, the system may not be working well if the overall clearance rate is low.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  You can't use the results of the system to validate the system. Your 2-10% wrongful conviction rate matches the rate capital defendants are legally found to have been wrongfully convicted[3]. They're a good subset to focus on because they're the cases get the most resources and attention, and are the only category of defendants who regularly get volunteer lawyers for postconviction review. But that can't prove that the system doesn't wrongfully convict at a higher rate. If public defenders are underfunded that will reduce their ability to prove wrongful convictions, for example. Note that a successful postconviction petition is much harder without a good record established by the original trial counsel. The Glossip case is a good example of how "innocence is not enough" to get exoneration. (Your stats are also off by a bit. The average state conviction rate is around 80%, but there's way more than 10% variance. California is up at 94% while Florida is at 55%. [1] Meanwhile the feds are all the way up at 99.6%. [2] [1]: Table B-1 on https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html [2]: https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-about-the-federal-governments-conviction-rate/ https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-ab... [3]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 Edit: I forgot cite 3
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Innocence is not enough to get a conviction overturned but it also isn’t necessary to get a conviction overturned. Procedural flaws are far and away the most common reason. So the overturned rate, in capital cases or elsewhere, doesn’t tell us much about the true facts of the matter—-not even as a floor.
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      Edit: I realized writing this response that I forgot to link my citation 3 in the post you replied to. I also wasn't clear what it was measuring. But to clarify that number is exonerations only, which requires innocence. A legal finding of significant procedural flaws might lead to a reduction to life in prison or a new trial and wouldn't be counted as an exoneration. Getting a verdict overturned based on procedural issues isn't as easy as popular culture makes out. You have to show both that your rights were violated and that no reasonable jury could have possibly found you guilty if your rights weren't violated. Simply having signed statements from your jurors that they wouldn't have found you guilty if they knew what the prosecutors covered up isn't sufficient, for example.
      - bradleyjg 3y ago
        It depends on the flaw. For example, if an appeals court finds that a search was no good and tosses evidence as the fruit of the poisonous tree that’s almost certainly going to lead to a tossed conviction. But it doesn’t mean factual innocence, on the contrary.
        iudqnolq 3y ago
        But that wouldn't be an exoneration. The exoneration rate for criminal defendants sentenced to death is around 4%, see my citation 3 in the original post. (And it wouldn't "almost certainly" lead to a tossed conviction. The defendant would have a chance but not a guarantee at getting a new trial. See the comment you replied to for details)
Imnimo 3y ago
I would guess "haven't", based on how many arrests do not even result in a case being referred to prosecutors. Certainly there is some portion of those cases who did commit the crime but the state lacks evidence, but my hunch is that this is not enough to tip the scales in the other direction.
- agentofoblivion 3y ago
  What? Have you seen police in real life? When I see them, shit is going down, which is why they were called and turned on those flashy emergency lights.
akhosravian 3y ago
Some related questions also worth considering: are most people who have actually committed a crime arrested? In what circumstances is arresting someone necessary or even beneficial for society on the whole? There are costs both to the people in terms of booking & housing someone in jail, and to the individual as for most folks not regularly dealing with law enforcement being arrested is at least somewhat traumatic.

How does that apply? I don't think there's a good way to measure that. If you go by conviction rate, it's something like 75% +/-10% depending on jurisdiction and grading. Then you'd have to adjust for the 2-10% of wrongful convictions for the incarcerated. Then adjust for the people who commited a crime but were not convicted, but I haven't seen stats on that.

bradleyjg 3y ago
How does that apply? Even if we all agree that minimizing type I errors (false positives) is of paramount importance, the optimal design of the system depends heavily on the true positive rate at the top of the funnel.
- giantg2 3y ago
  But then you need to go a step higher and look at how many crimes have been cleared. Even if we have a high true positive rate at the arrest stage, the system may not be working well if the overall clearance rate is low.
iudqnolq 3y ago
You can't use the results of the system to validate the system. Your 2-10% wrongful conviction rate matches the rate capital defendants are legally found to have been wrongfully convicted[3]. They're a good subset to focus on because they're the cases get the most resources and attention, and are the only category of defendants who regularly get volunteer lawyers for postconviction review. But that can't prove that the system doesn't wrongfully convict at a higher rate. If public defenders are underfunded that will reduce their ability to prove wrongful convictions, for example. Note that a successful postconviction petition is much harder without a good record established by the original trial counsel. The Glossip case is a good example of how "innocence is not enough" to get exoneration. (Your stats are also off by a bit. The average state conviction rate is around 80%, but there's way more than 10% variance. California is up at 94% while Florida is at 55%. [1] Meanwhile the feds are all the way up at 99.6%. [2] [1]: Table B-1 on https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html https://www.paperprisons.org/statistics.html [2]: https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-about-the-federal-governments-conviction-rate/ https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-ab... [3]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 Edit: I forgot cite 3
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Innocence is not enough to get a conviction overturned but it also isn’t necessary to get a conviction overturned. Procedural flaws are far and away the most common reason. So the overturned rate, in capital cases or elsewhere, doesn’t tell us much about the true facts of the matter—-not even as a floor.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    Edit: I realized writing this response that I forgot to link my citation 3 in the post you replied to. I also wasn't clear what it was measuring. But to clarify that number is exonerations only, which requires innocence. A legal finding of significant procedural flaws might lead to a reduction to life in prison or a new trial and wouldn't be counted as an exoneration. Getting a verdict overturned based on procedural issues isn't as easy as popular culture makes out. You have to show both that your rights were violated and that no reasonable jury could have possibly found you guilty if your rights weren't violated. Simply having signed statements from your jurors that they wouldn't have found you guilty if they knew what the prosecutors covered up isn't sufficient, for example.
    - bradleyjg 3y ago
      It depends on the flaw. For example, if an appeals court finds that a search was no good and tosses evidence as the fruit of the poisonous tree that’s almost certainly going to lead to a tossed conviction. But it doesn’t mean factual innocence, on the contrary.
      - iudqnolq 3y ago
        But that wouldn't be an exoneration. The exoneration rate for criminal defendants sentenced to death is around 4%, see my citation 3 in the original post. (And it wouldn't "almost certainly" lead to a tossed conviction. The defendant would have a chance but not a guarantee at getting a new trial. See the comment you replied to for details)

Imnimo 3y ago

I would guess "haven't", based on how many arrests do not even result in a case being referred to prosecutors. Certainly there is some portion of those cases who did commit the crime but the state lacks evidence, but my hunch is that this is not enough to tip the scales in the other direction.

agentofoblivion 3y ago
What? Have you seen police in real life? When I see them, shit is going down, which is why they were called and turned on those flashy emergency lights.

akhosravian 3y ago

Some related questions also worth considering: are most people who have actually committed a crime arrested? In what circumstances is arresting someone necessary or even beneficial for society on the whole? There are costs both to the people in terms of booking & housing someone in jail, and to the individual as for most folks not regularly dealing with law enforcement being arrested is at least somewhat traumatic.