4 ms·

That this is true is indisputable. But the implicit idea that it's okay (or at least inevitable) is really disturbing.

by pinko 14y ago

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
On the other hand, if on 9/11 somebody had acted on their unsettling response to the suicide hijackers, it would have come out differently. The final filter for good security is a person looking at a person and deciding. I recall a post citing this as the best-performing filter. Unfortunately it ends in profiling. So, profiling, or mass death?
- pinko 14y ago
  This the classic argument for a police state. Increased police powers, surveillance, suspicion, etc. are virtually guaranteed to reduce crime. Does that make them a good idea? How many false positives are you willing to endure to avoid a false negative? Also, for what it's worth, the false positives (profiling) are much more "mass" in nature than the false negatives (death).
  - pc86 14y ago
    While certainly a strong negative, I don't think profiling can be considered a false positive. If a false negative is a terrorist getting onto a plane, wouldn't a false positive be a non-terrorist being blocked from getting on a plane (or removed) because the FA/pilot/FAA/DHS/FBI/twitchy passenger two rows back thought they were a terrorist? Making everyone darker that a given paint swatch go through additional screening is abhorrent, but I don't think it's a false positive.
- 3825 14y ago
  I subscribe to Blackstone's formulation[1] that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". However, I can imagine someone with young kids might have a different outlook. Profiling or mass death is a difficult question. I am not a psychopath. I refuse to hurt one person to save the lives of a hundred. Edit: I fully support the stance of the airline and its employees in this case. Why should they go through the trouble to turn the movie off just because I made some bs rules on what my brats can or cannot watch? Blindfold them if you must. This shows how customer demands go beyond absurd. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstones_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstones_formulation
  - Ntrails 14y ago
    I disagree, in principle. I'd rather one innocent suffer such that 10 guilty men do not escape justice (and likely cause greater suffering in the long run). Even were the innocent to be me, i objectively say it is better that way for society as a whole. Note - this doesn't mean i would be happy, or wouldn't attempt to rectify, or generally complain were I punished in innocence. Merely that I would agree it is better on average. Where this all falls to pieces, is with numbers. how about 50 innocent punished such that 51 guilty do not escape justice and so on and so forth. Where is the line drawn? How do you enforce it? For this I have no robust argument, if one can even be made.
    - koenigdavidmj 14y ago
      Most of the cases where Blackstone's forumulation comes in are where the justice system thinks its job done after the innocent is punished. Texas, for instance, has resisted the checking of DNA evidence because (in part) it would bring up the emotional wounds to the victim. In that case, however, you are not punishing one innocent and ten guilty men; you are punishing one innocent and letting the guilty go free.
    - agwa 14y ago
      Society is worse off if Blackstone's Ratio is not followed. The harm caused by a criminal act is not equivalent to the harm caused by a wrongful conviction: the former is unambiguously illegitimate whereas the latter is legitimate and supported by the government in the name of the people. Society has many ways of mitigating the effects of crime: we have insurance, victim support groups, etc. But if you're wrongly convicted, you have nothing. After all, you're a "criminal" not a victim and that's how you'll always be remembered. The exact number of guilty people in the ratio doesn't matter. No one can agree on it, and it's impossible to quantify the harm anyways. It's really more about the idea of fair trials and the presumption of innocence, which is a handbrake against tyranny. It's a warning that the fear of letting guilty people go must not be used to justify diminishing the presumption of innocence. This is why Blackstone's Ratio was supported by people like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams whereas a "reverse" Blackstone's Ratio (better to let X innocent people suffer than let one guilty person escape) was embraced by such delightful people as Otto von Bismarck, Feliks Dzerzhinsky (founder of the Soviet secret police), and Pol Pot.
- TillE 14y ago
  Reinforced cockpit doors and the new assumption that hijacking = death already prevent another 9/11 from ever happening. Justifying every little bit of paranoia because you're very very scared of some unknown threat is deeply irrational. Proportional responses are fine - unusual behavior merits further observation or inquiry, not pushing a big red button.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Great, fabulous, we'll stop airliner attacks. Does that stop anyone from attacking large, concentrated TSA security lines before checkpoints? Welcome to diminishing returns.

That this is true is indisputable. But the implicit idea that it's okay (or at least inevitable) is really disturbing.

by pinko 14y ago

That this is true is indisputable. But the implicit idea that it's okay (or at least inevitable) is really disturbing.

On the other hand, if on 9/11 somebody had acted on their unsettling response to the suicide hijackers, it would have come out differently. The final filter for good security is a person looking at a person and deciding. I recall a post citing this as the best-performing filter. Unfortunately it ends in profiling. So, profiling, or mass death?

pinko 14y ago
This the classic argument for a police state. Increased police powers, surveillance, suspicion, etc. are virtually guaranteed to reduce crime. Does that make them a good idea? How many false positives are you willing to endure to avoid a false negative? Also, for what it's worth, the false positives (profiling) are much more "mass" in nature than the false negatives (death).
- pc86 14y ago
  While certainly a strong negative, I don't think profiling can be considered a false positive. If a false negative is a terrorist getting onto a plane, wouldn't a false positive be a non-terrorist being blocked from getting on a plane (or removed) because the FA/pilot/FAA/DHS/FBI/twitchy passenger two rows back thought they were a terrorist? Making everyone darker that a given paint swatch go through additional screening is abhorrent, but I don't think it's a false positive.
3825 14y ago
I subscribe to Blackstone's formulation[1] that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". However, I can imagine someone with young kids might have a different outlook. Profiling or mass death is a difficult question. I am not a psychopath. I refuse to hurt one person to save the lives of a hundred. Edit: I fully support the stance of the airline and its employees in this case. Why should they go through the trouble to turn the movie off just because I made some bs rules on what my brats can or cannot watch? Blindfold them if you must. This shows how customer demands go beyond absurd. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstones_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstones_formulation
- Ntrails 14y ago
  I disagree, in principle. I'd rather one innocent suffer such that 10 guilty men do not escape justice (and likely cause greater suffering in the long run). Even were the innocent to be me, i objectively say it is better that way for society as a whole. Note - this doesn't mean i would be happy, or wouldn't attempt to rectify, or generally complain were I punished in innocence. Merely that I would agree it is better on average. Where this all falls to pieces, is with numbers. how about 50 innocent punished such that 51 guilty do not escape justice and so on and so forth. Where is the line drawn? How do you enforce it? For this I have no robust argument, if one can even be made.
  - koenigdavidmj 14y ago
    Most of the cases where Blackstone's forumulation comes in are where the justice system thinks its job done after the innocent is punished. Texas, for instance, has resisted the checking of DNA evidence because (in part) it would bring up the emotional wounds to the victim. In that case, however, you are not punishing one innocent and ten guilty men; you are punishing one innocent and letting the guilty go free.
  - agwa 14y ago
    Society is worse off if Blackstone's Ratio is not followed. The harm caused by a criminal act is not equivalent to the harm caused by a wrongful conviction: the former is unambiguously illegitimate whereas the latter is legitimate and supported by the government in the name of the people. Society has many ways of mitigating the effects of crime: we have insurance, victim support groups, etc. But if you're wrongly convicted, you have nothing. After all, you're a "criminal" not a victim and that's how you'll always be remembered. The exact number of guilty people in the ratio doesn't matter. No one can agree on it, and it's impossible to quantify the harm anyways. It's really more about the idea of fair trials and the presumption of innocence, which is a handbrake against tyranny. It's a warning that the fear of letting guilty people go must not be used to justify diminishing the presumption of innocence. This is why Blackstone's Ratio was supported by people like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams whereas a "reverse" Blackstone's Ratio (better to let X innocent people suffer than let one guilty person escape) was embraced by such delightful people as Otto von Bismarck, Feliks Dzerzhinsky (founder of the Soviet secret police), and Pol Pot.
TillE 14y ago
Reinforced cockpit doors and the new assumption that hijacking = death already prevent another 9/11 from ever happening. Justifying every little bit of paranoia because you're very very scared of some unknown threat is deeply irrational. Proportional responses are fine - unusual behavior merits further observation or inquiry, not pushing a big red button.
toomuchtodo 14y ago
Great, fabulous, we'll stop airliner attacks. Does that stop anyone from attacking large, concentrated TSA security lines before checkpoints? Welcome to diminishing returns.