4 ms·

"The few criminologists who have thus far investigated the phenomenon estimate that the overall rate for convicted felons as a whole is between 2 percent and 8

"The few criminologists who have thus far investigated the phenomenon estimate that the overall rate for convicted felons as a whole is between 2 percent and 8 percent." I'm sorry but you are quoting an article that doesn't give a proper citation for this at all, so please don't rely on these probably woefully underestimated numbers. I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me if I missed their source though, but for now; What few criminologists? How do they know there are only a few? Did they do a survey or what papers are they basing this on? This lack of sourcing undermines the rest of your comment, not to mention you imply that the jury trial standard is "90% or lower" when you don't even specify that what you link is related to tax crimes only... "Moreover, it's unclear to me that you can do much better than 90-95% accuracy." Again, you basically smushed these numbers in to fit your narrative, and they are not reliable at all, so your entire argument falls flat. " What would be your rate of false negatives (i.e. where you let a guilty person go)? And how would society react to that?" In a society that values the principles of law and the rule of law, it is better to let a guilty man go than an innocent one, given that they should be innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately our society seems less and less inclined to care about the rule of law, so I'm guessing "society" wouldn't give a fuck about a few more guilty people being let free, just like they don't really seem to give a fuck about innocent people being jailed. Sorry if I'm being to negative, I just really don't understand where you were trying to go with your comment and it's bad statistics. Feel free to elaborate and correct me.

jacquesm 11y ago
> I'm sorry but you are quoting an article that doesn't give a proper citation for this at all, so please don't rely on these probably woefully underestimated numbers. Underestimated? They're already huge!
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Exactly, I saying they are larger than even the "huge" numbers let on.
rayiner 11y ago
I referenced the Rakoff article because it was on HN recently and is very likely the one 'swombat was referring to in his comment. The editorial by Judge Rakoff was against plea bargaining, and the judge is a scholar of criminal justice, so I think it's reasonable, for the purposes of HN discussion, to use the 2-8% figure with a qualifier as I did ("if the 2-8% error rate is correct").[1] You also misinterpreted the contents of my link. It's on a tax crime blog, but the text is clear that the author is talking about perceptions of the reasonable doubt standard in general ("In a criminal tax prosecution, just as any other criminal prosecution, the Government bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.") > In a society that values the principles of law and the rule of law, it is better to let a guilty man go than an innocent one, given that they should be innocent until proven guilty. Every heuristic system of decision will have false positives and false negatives. You can ensure zero false positives, but at the cost of 100% false negatives. If you have any criminal justice system, you'll put innocent people in prison. The social debate is just about how many you're willing to put in prison to reduce the false negative rate to a socially acceptable level. [1] This exchange in the New York Book Review regarding Judge Rakoff's editorial is also worth reading: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/18/plea-bargains-prosecutors-exchange http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/18/plea-ba.... It contains letters from Robert Swartz (Aaron Swartz's father), and Judge Michael M. Baylson, as well as a response by Judge Rakoff.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  "I think it's reasonable, for the purposes of HN discussion, to use the 2-8% figure with a qualifier as I did ("if the 2-8% error rate is correct")." I understand that, and what I am saying is that I don't care if the person who wrote the editorial was a judge or any other person, his numbers aren't cited in any way shape or form and are left to rest completely on his laurels. That's fine for an op-ed, but you then latching onto those numbers, even with a qualifier, still undermines your position on the matter. "You also misinterpreted the contents of my link." Indeed, I seem to have focused too much on the tax crime angle, so I'll cede this point, but I still think that the numbers backing your linked blog are dubious, eg; "In one study of his 10 of his colleagues by Judge Weinstein..." "In a larger survey of federal judges throughout the country... Of the 171 judges who responded" "ther attempts at empirical studies of these issues show that judges and suggest that jurors are all over the lot on the issue." All I am saying is this: Show me the empirical studies and not the hugely biased numbers from some small pool of judges being asked how they rate their average conviction probability. Sorry for the haste and missteps in my original comment.

jacquesm 11y ago

> I'm sorry but you are quoting an article that doesn't give a proper citation for this at all, so please don't rely on these probably woefully underestimated numbers. Underestimated? They're already huge!

arca_vorago 11y ago
Exactly, I saying they are larger than even the "huge" numbers let on.

rayiner 11y ago

I referenced the Rakoff article because it was on HN recently and is very likely the one 'swombat was referring to in his comment. The editorial by Judge Rakoff was against plea bargaining, and the judge is a scholar of criminal justice, so I think it's reasonable, for the purposes of HN discussion, to use the 2-8% figure with a qualifier as I did ("if the 2-8% error rate is correct").[1] You also misinterpreted the contents of my link. It's on a tax crime blog, but the text is clear that the author is talking about perceptions of the reasonable doubt standard in general ("In a criminal tax prosecution, just as any other criminal prosecution, the Government bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.") > In a society that values the principles of law and the rule of law, it is better to let a guilty man go than an innocent one, given that they should be innocent until proven guilty. Every heuristic system of decision will have false positives and false negatives. You can ensure zero false positives, but at the cost of 100% false negatives. If you have any criminal justice system, you'll put innocent people in prison. The social debate is just about how many you're willing to put in prison to reduce the false negative rate to a socially acceptable level. [1] This exchange in the New York Book Review regarding Judge Rakoff's editorial is also worth reading: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/18/plea-bargains-prosecutors-exchange http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/18/plea-ba.... It contains letters from Robert Swartz (Aaron Swartz's father), and Judge Michael M. Baylson, as well as a response by Judge Rakoff.

arca_vorago 11y ago
"I think it's reasonable, for the purposes of HN discussion, to use the 2-8% figure with a qualifier as I did ("if the 2-8% error rate is correct")." I understand that, and what I am saying is that I don't care if the person who wrote the editorial was a judge or any other person, his numbers aren't cited in any way shape or form and are left to rest completely on his laurels. That's fine for an op-ed, but you then latching onto those numbers, even with a qualifier, still undermines your position on the matter. "You also misinterpreted the contents of my link." Indeed, I seem to have focused too much on the tax crime angle, so I'll cede this point, but I still think that the numbers backing your linked blog are dubious, eg; "In one study of his 10 of his colleagues by Judge Weinstein..." "In a larger survey of federal judges throughout the country... Of the 171 judges who responded" "ther attempts at empirical studies of these issues show that judges and suggest that jurors are all over the lot on the issue." All I am saying is this: Show me the empirical studies and not the hugely biased numbers from some small pool of judges being asked how they rate their average conviction probability. Sorry for the haste and missteps in my original comment.