What Chance Of Innocence Can Be Tolerated For Conviction?

[David Sklansky]

A lot of people hate the question formed this way but there is no getting around it. Assuming major felonies, equal danger to the public when a guilty guy is acquitted, identical punishments, and anything else, Pair the Board can think of to distract from the intent of this post, and also assuming that it is a pure whodonit case where the defendent hangs his whole hat on the fact that it wasn't him.

Given that. What chance of innocence in your mind is an acceptable risk?

Also should it be OK for different jury members to have different opinions on this matter? In other words is it acceptable that they come to different verdicts not because they disagree on chance of innocence but because they disagree on what that chance need be for an acquittal.

PS The definition of "chance of innocence in your mind" is how many out of one hundred cases with identical evidence would the defendent actually be innocent.

[Shadowrun]

5/100

[Taraz]

I'd say 1/100. I think it's fine for jury members to disagree on what this chance needs to be. It probably leads to better debate during deliberations.

[PairTheBoard]

I'd go by the instruction of the court.

[ QUOTE ]
"Any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything in there that requires me to put the question in terms of "chance" or some kind of psuedo-probability model.

PairTheBoard

[Duke]

Zero

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd go by the instruction of the court.

[ QUOTE ]
"Any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything in there that requires me to put the question in terms of "chance" or some kind of psuedo-probability model.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

you realize that reasonable doubt IS probability its just not defined by the court, rather its left to each person to define for themselves.

[andyfox]

So if there's a one in a trillion chance a guy might be innocent, you won't vote to convict? Virtually nobody would ever be convicted if everyone had that standard.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Also should it be OK for different jury members to have different opinions on this matter? In other words is it acceptable that they come to different verdicts not because they disagree on chance of innocence but because they disagree on what that chance need be for an acquittal.

[/ QUOTE ]
more than ok, each jury member should apply the standards to others they woud wish to be applied to them if they were on trial or the victim or a potential victim etc

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd go by the instruction of the court.

[ QUOTE ]
"Any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything in there that requires me to put the question in terms of "chance" or some kind of psuedo-probability model.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

you realize that reasonable doubt IS probability its just not defined by the court, rather its left to each person to define for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely don't know that. In fact I do know that is a philisophical assertion, not a mathematical one.

PairTheBoard

[Shadowrun]

I see what your saying but you could make an attempt to figure out its mathematical value on average:

The first attempt to quantify reasonable doubt was made by Simon in 1970. In the attempt, she presented a trial to groups of students. Half of the students decided the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The other half recorded their perceived likelihood, given as a percentage, that the defendant committed the crime. She then matched the highest likelihoods of guilt with the guilty verdicts and the lowest likelihoods of guilt with the innocent verdicts. From this, she gauged that the cutoff for reasonable doubt fell somewhere between the highest likelihood of guilt matched to an innocent verdict and the lowest likelihood of guilt matched to a guilty verdict. From these samples, Simon concluded that the standard was between .70 and .74.

(interesting article- not definitive proof of anything- http://www.valpo.edu/mathcs/verum/papers/2006/ReasonableDoubtFinal.pdf)

[Siegmund]

The instructions from the court tend to be something a bit vague, and my answer will float a bit based on the severity of the situation.

For a traffic-ticket appeal, I am happy with 5/100, and could probably tolerate ten.

For a misdemeanor something less than 1/100 is ok - if I had to cite a specific one-size-fits-all number I'd probably pick something close to 1/100. For something like a murder trial I would be very nervous if there was as much as 1 in 1000 chance of being wrong.

There's a tradeoff between how many guilty people are let off the hook and how many innocent ones are jailed. People, especially classical statisticians, are prone to always fixing the risk of Type I error.

A better approach might be to compare the relative severities of being wrong in each direction, and find the spot on a power curve that matches that. In the case of the traffic fine, both types of error are more or less trivial; in the case of a murder, I would judge condemning an innocent man to be something like 100 times worse than freeing a guilty one--- and my equilibrium point would be something like accepting a 10% chance of freeing a guilty man in exchange for a 1/1000 chance of condeming an innocent one.

[Archon_Wing]

To all:

How would the degree of punishment affect you, eg (prison, death)? I would think the reversibility of a wrong conviction should matter too.

[Taraz]

I think a better question is how do you convert each piece of evidence into some kind of probability that the defendant is guilty? How can you calculate how sure you are?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To all:

How would the degree of punishment affect you, eg (prison, death)? I would think the reversibility of a wrong conviction should matter too.

[/ QUOTE ]
makes a huge difference. Reversability of a wrong aquital would matter as well.

but everthing makes a difference e.g. the stupider the law the higher degree of certainty required, 101% in some cases.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what your saying but you could make an attempt to figure out its mathematical value on average:

The first attempt to quantify reasonable doubt was made by Simon in 1970. In the attempt, she presented a trial to groups of students. Half of the students decided the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The other half recorded their perceived likelihood, given as a percentage, that the defendant committed the crime. She then matched the highest likelihoods of guilt with the guilty verdicts and the lowest likelihoods of guilt with the innocent verdicts. From this, she gauged that the cutoff for reasonable doubt fell somewhere between the highest likelihood of guilt matched to an innocent verdict and the lowest likelihood of guilt matched to a guilty verdict. From these samples, Simon concluded that the standard was between .70 and .74.

(interesting article- not definitive proof of anything- http://www.valpo.edu/mathcs/verum/papers/2006/ReasonableDoubtFinal.pdf)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what it shows is that people will pick Probability Numbers if they are forced to. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to force them to do so. It also doesn't mean using those numbers in an artificial idealized probability model is a good idea. The conclusions manufactured by that model may very well be far inferior to the Best Judgement of the jurors deliberating on the evidence normally.

PairTheBoard

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To all:

How would the degree of punishment affect you, eg (prison, death)? I would think the reversibility of a wrong conviction should matter too.

[/ QUOTE ]
makes a huge difference. Reversability of a wrong aquital would matter as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah.

Welcome to real life: the damage done by either error is completely irreparable. It's illegal to try someone for the same crime twice, and impossible to award someone extra years of life to make up for the ones he missed out on. You can take a wrong conviction off someone's record, and you can hand him some money - but this does absolutely nothing for repairing his reputation or undoing what he went through during the trial and time imprisoned.

Yes, you waste more years of someone's life by executing him than you do by locking him up awhile and then freeing him -- but that's a difference of amount of damage done, not a matter of one being reversible.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To all:

How would the degree of punishment affect you, eg (prison, death)? I would think the reversibility of a wrong conviction should matter too.

[/ QUOTE ]
makes a huge difference. Reversability of a wrong aquital would matter as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah.

Welcome to real life: the damage done by either error is completely irreparable. It's illegal to try someone for the same crime twice, and impossible to award someone extra years of life to make up for the ones he missed out on. You can take a wrong conviction off someone's record, and you can hand him some money - but this does absolutely nothing for repairing his reputation or undoing what he went through during the trial and time imprisoned.

Yes, you waste more years of someone's life by executing him than you do by locking him up awhile and then freeing him -- but that's a difference of amount of damage done, not a matter of one being reversible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure it is illegal in the uk to try someone again if further evidence comes to light. Not sure but they were certainly talking about allowing it. Also they can retry on similar charges. Edit: yep its allowed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm)

The rest just seems wrong. I'd be more likely to convict if there was a decent appeals procedure and a competent agency was looking for more evidence. Its not about giving them back the years lost but reducing the downside of being wrong.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
What Chance Of Innocence Can Be Tolerated For Conviction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go with whatever society decides. As long as it is not too much out of whack it’s not important.

The important thing is that society, as a whole does not loose confidence in the legal system.

[ QUOTE ]
is it acceptable that they come to different verdicts not because they disagree on chance of innocence but because they disagree on what that chance need be for an acquittal.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will do it any way, so might as well accept it.

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of "chance of innocence in your mind" is how many out of one hundred cases with identical evidence would the defendent actually be innocent

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not have a default definition, I’m happy to go along with anyone else’s.

[David Sklansky]

First of all I disagree with those who say that there is a problem with using numbers. If you use my definition, "the number of people out of 100 who IN YOUR OPINION would actually be innocent given the exact same evidence (including even things like demeanor on the witness stand), I believe that most people could comprehend that.

Secondly I vehemently disagree with chezlaw. If we did start putting a number on chances of guilt in whodonit cases, what possible reason is there not to specify what those chances should be in a juror's mind for various crimes? In chezlaws's scenario you could have a hung jury because eleven voted to convict each of whom thought the chances of innocence was 2% while another voted to acquit thinking there was only a one percent chance of innocence. Because he thought one percent was enough. Even worse would be the jury that should be "hung", but isn't, because the one jury member who thinks there is a 25% chance of innocence doesn't believe that he should vote to acquit.

To not specify a number threshold adds an element of luck to the verdict that shouldn't be there.

As far as what that number should be, I think it depends on the crime, the punishment faced, and other circumstances. And I'm not sure who should do the specifying, the judge, the legislature whatever. And again it only applies to purely whodonit cases.

I realize the logistics of this is daunting if not impossible. But at the very least it should be undersood that in least in theory, this is the best solution. For those who would object that it makes the process too mathematical, I would remind you again that the probability assessment is still an individual personal opinion. But there is no reason why that personal opinion can't be put in a form that is more precise than the words "reasonable doubt".

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a better question is how do you convert each piece of evidence into some kind of probability that the defendant is guilty? How can you calculate how sure you are?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a nice tool that usually works well. Especially if the pieces of evidence are unrelated. (In other words if you find out the murderer is over three hundred pinds like the defendent, and then find out the murderer is over six three like the defendent its different than if you later found out they are both redheads.) But I won't utter the name of that tool here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly I vehemently disagree with chezlaw. If we did start putting a number on chances of guilt in whodonit cases, what possible reason is there not to specify what those chances should be in a juror's mind for various crimes? In chezlaws's scenario you could have a hung jury because eleven voted to convict each of whom thought the chances of innocence was 2% while another voted to acquit thinking there was only a one percent chance of innocence. Because he thought one percent was enough. Even worse would be the jury that should be "hung", but isn't, because the one jury member who thinks there is a 25% chance of innocence doesn't believe that he should vote to acquit.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do occasional come over a bit authoritarian don't you? People act as they think right not as others (even you) think is right.

I think many (including me) are happy with the idea of some sort of majority process.

chez

[David Sklansky]

What a vague retort. You think it is ok for some jury members to believe it is OK to convict a person who they believe has a 20% chance of innocence while other members think it is OK to acquit someone based on a 1% chance? And its OK for those people to be randomly placed in jury boxes?

If that was true why the necessity of using the words "reasonable doubt" and, I might add, defining that term moderately precisely. Why not just say "convict if you think you have enough evidence to". The answer of course is that the government doe NOT want jury members to be saying to themselves "as long as he is slightly favored to be guilty lets be safe and put him away" or " I could never live with myself if I thought there was more than a miniscule chance I helped convict an innocent man". You are just flat wrong and I bet even Pair The Board agrees with me on this specific issue.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What a vague retort. You think it is ok for some jury members to believe it is OK to convict a person who they believe has a 20% chance of innocence while other members think it is OK to acquit someone based on a 1% chance? And its OK for those people to be randomly placed in jury boxes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutley. Anything else would be far worse. again majority veridics should come into play.

[ QUOTE ]
If that was true why the necessity of using the words "reasonable doubt" and, I might add, defining that term moderately precisely. Why not just say "convict if you think you have enough evidence to". The answer of course is that the government doe NOT want jury members to be saying to themselves "as long as he is slightly favored to be guilty lets be safe and put him away" or " I could never live with myself if I thought there was more than a miniscule chance I helped convict an innocent man".

[/ QUOTE ]
what the government wants?? Who gives a flying f what the government wants? Juries are there in part to protect us from the authorities - of course the authorities don't particularly like that and have a habit of incorrectly directing juries about what they can do.

chez

[David Sklansky]

OK nevermind.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet even Pair The Board agrees with me on this specific issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your general idea that we need a Standard for Reasonable Doubt. I agree with chezlaw's observation that what's important is what The People want, not the authorities. He is correct in pointing out that the people often want protection from the authorities.

The Standard for reasonable doubt that the people want is a Human standard.

[ QUOTE ]
"Any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."


[/ QUOTE ]

You claim this is only "moderately precise" and should be replaced by a Number. I definitely do not agree with you on that point.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your general idea that we need a Standard for Reasonable Doubt. I agree with chezlaw's observation that what's important is what The People want, not the authorities. He is correct in pointing out that the people often want protection from the authorities.

The Standard for reasonable doubt that the people want is a Human standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd just add that what people want varies from person to person and the best way to implement this is to leave the decision to a random sample of people with some averaging process - I can't think of a better averaging process that some sort of majority verdict.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your general idea that we need a Standard for Reasonable Doubt. I agree with chezlaw's observation that what's important is what The People want, not the authorities. He is correct in pointing out that the people often want protection from the authorities.

The Standard for reasonable doubt that the people want is a Human standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd just add that what people want varies from person to person and the best way to implement this is to leave the decision to a random sample of people with some averaging process - I can't think of a better averaging process that some sort of majority verdict.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really a side issue. The thing is, Hung Juries don't really happen that often. Some kind of averaging process must be going on during deliberations in the jury room. Otherwise, all verdicts would be decided on the first ballot. The requirement for a unanimous verdict is part of the Standard for reasonable doubt.

It's not just a question of what level of confidence implies reasonable doubt. Some people may see the evidence entirely differently. If it's a minor difference he will probably be talked out of it. That's the averaging process. But if he has a strong enough conviction that the evidence is saying something entirely different than the majority he can hang the jury. The Public sees that kind of thing as part of overall reasonable doubt for the verdict. It may subject us to crackpots. But it also helps protect us from a majority jury view that may be biased by prejudice. If I am on trial for my life, I want that protection.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But it also helps protect us from a majority jury view that may be biased by prejudice. If I am on trial for my life, I want that protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

Maybe the averaging can take place in the jury room, I think it would be better for everyone to be free to vote as they see fit knowing that their vote doesn't have a disproportionate weight.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it also helps protect us from a majority jury view that may be biased by prejudice. If I am on trial for my life, I want that protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I think it's a judgement call. I'm disposed toward the current unanimous system for criminal cases. But you have a point.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it also helps protect us from a majority jury view that may be biased by prejudice. If I am on trial for my life, I want that protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I think it's a judgement call. I'm disposed toward the current unanimous system for criminal cases. But you have a point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
no big disagreements here. i'm disposed towards the current system as well though in my case that's the majority system /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim this is only "moderately precise" and should be replaced by a Number. I definitely do not agree with you on that point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does David advocate changing the system other than for assigning a number probability for this hypothetical question?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything in there that requires me to put the question in terms of "chance" or some kind of psuedo-probability model.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypothetical question does. How does "reasonable doubt" not equate to say "reasonable 'chance' of innocence"?

Why do you avoid answering the hypothetical question?

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
no big disagreements here. i'm disposed towards the current system as well though in my case that's the majority system /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Refresh me if this is correct for England: If 12 jurors can't decide unanimously then the judge can allow for a majority? What is the majority number?

[beakachu]

Let me say first that I don't particularly have a problem with the idea of putting a (more or less precise) number on the likelihood of an event having happened. But I don't believe that putting a probability on guilt fits with many people's ideas about knowledge.

The problem here is much-discussed in philosophy: on an intuitive basis, it seems that you can know A will happen, but not know B will happen, despite B being more likely than A. The typical example involves B being the outcome of a lottery. Having bought a lottery ticket, I can't say I know I won't win, or else I clearly wouldn't have bothered buying it. But people can reasonably claim to know much less likely things (or else we'd never have knowledge).

It could just be that intuition is off in these cases, but they're taken fairly seriously by philosophers. We can imagine similar criminal cases. What if a man is on trial for murder as part of a 10-man firing squad, one of whose guns fired a blank? Surely he can't be convicted (although presumably he could be convicted of attempted murder), but I don't think it's on the basis of his 1/10 chance of innocence. Personally, I'm not sure you could convict him if the squad was 100 or 1000 or more men.

Or maybe you could. Intuition only goes so far.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
you can know A will happen, but not know B will happen, despite B being more likely than A.

[/ QUOTE ]

P(A) = 1, P(B) <= 1. B > A.

????

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
To all:

How would the degree of punishment affect you, eg (prison, death)? I would think the reversibility of a wrong conviction should matter too.

[/ QUOTE ]

there have been numerous juries who have publicly stated that they never would have convicted if they had known the severity of the punishment.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chance of anyone actually going to a jury trial who is a real criminal is so miniscual as to be laughable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no big disagreements here. i'm disposed towards the current system as well though in my case that's the majority system /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Refresh me if this is correct for England: If 12 jurors can't decide unanimously then the judge can allow for a majority? What is the majority number?

[/ QUOTE ]
from the government website [ QUOTE ]
There is a need for a retrial if the jury cannot agree or at least reach a majority verdict. In the High Court the jury is 12 in number, so a majority can be 10 - 2, but in the County Court there are only 8 jurors, so the majority permitted is 7 - 1. It is very rare for the parties to agree to take a verdict based on a smaller majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chance of anyone actually going to a jury trial who is a real criminal is so miniscual as to be laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that. What chance of innocence in your mind is an acceptable risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the punishment? The harsher, the less acceptable risk.

I'm going to go with 1/25,000 chance of innocence for death penalty, 1/1,000 for life imprisonment (with possibility of parole after say 30 years), 1/200 for 10 years inprisonment, 1/50 for 5 years inprisonment or less. Of course I'm assuming the sentence could be adjusted a posteriori, that is, you can change from death penalty to 5 years inprisonment if after the trial the jury decides there's a 1/150 chance that the defendant is guilty but not a 1/10,000. I'm also assuming sentences could be reversed fairly easily in the face of new evidence. (maybe not in the death penalty case /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ QUOTE ]

Also should it be OK for different jury members to have different opinions on this matter?


[/ QUOTE ]

It should be irrelevant. The jury should simply state what's the chance of innocence they've calculated. (not that I think the whole jury system is best, but that's not the point here)

[Chimp]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I think it's a judgement call. I'm disposed toward the current unanimous system for criminal cases. But you have a point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unanimity is not always required in the US. Many states allow majority or super-majority verdicts in civil trials. A much smaller number allow them in criminal trials. At least, this was the situation when I was in law school about 10 years ago.

As for the original question, I remember the prof. discussing this issue in my crim law class. Most students thought the acceptable probability was between 75-90%. I can't remember what I thought at the time, but I am probably closer to the high end of that range now. The consensus was that the criminal system was intentionally set up to be a PTB-style squishy definition rather than a defined probability. This contrasts with the civil verdict system, which everyone agrees requires nothing more than >.50.

I don't know if someone is actually suggesting that we ask each juror to assign his own estimated probability to his individual verdict, but I can assure you that most American jurors would not be able to grasp this concept. The real-world application of such a system would be laughably unworkable (e.g., jurors voting to convict while at the same time assigning their probability of guilt at 10%)

[TomCowley]

David: It's about a coinflip for the average COLLEGE FRESHMAN to be able to solve 10.9=5.3/X in under 30 seconds with a calculator. It's way worse than a coinflip to find somebody who can figure the odds of rolling a 6 in craps. The average person is so utterly incompetent with probability that they can't "accurately" judge any number besides 0, 50, and 100.

That being said, your argument in this case is obviously correct. The evidence obviously can't increase the likelihood of innocence, and the only way it can fail to decrease it are in the trivial cases where the evidence is meaningless (say the whodunit is 80% defendant, 20% defendant's identical twin, and both have the same rare shoe size).

[samsonite2100]

I'd say around 10%

[Metric]

Haven't read most of the thread but I do agree with David's POV that it would be best to encode "reasonable doubt" as a specific probability estimate of guilt.

In fact, I bet that leaving it vague is where a lot of discrimination comes into play. Based on the evidence, someone might estimate a 90% chance of guilt, and be willing to say this counts as "reasonable doubt" for a defendant they like and respect, but might not count as "reasonable doubt" if it applies to your local gang member scum.

No doubt this kind of discrimination will exist anyway, but I think working the evidence directly into a probability estimate probably encourages more objectivity than working the evidence into whatever strikes you as "reasonable" after you get a good look at the defendant.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You claim this is only "moderately precise" and should be replaced by a Number. I definitely do not agree with you on that point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does David advocate changing the system other than for assigning a number probability for this hypothetical question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The majority jury system question was a side issue raised by chezlaw, not David. David insists we translate the court's definintion of reasonable doubt into a Number representing a psuedo-probability for chance of innoncence. I object to this.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything in there that requires me to put the question in terms of "chance" or some kind of psuedo-probability model.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypothetical question does. How does "reasonable doubt" not equate to say "reasonable 'chance' of innocence"?

Why do you avoid answering the hypothetical question?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question I'm talking about is, "What consitutes Reasonable Doubt"? The court has given us a definition of what constitutes reasonable doubt that does not involve any psuedo-probability or "chance" terms. They are Human terms. You ask how is it they don't "equate" to "chance of innocence"? The burden is on you to show how they do. Sklansky can't do that because it is not a mathematical assertion that they do "equate". It is a philisophical assumption. I suggest you read jason1990's posts on the "Shoe Size" thread if you want to understand this better. You can also read the Wikipedia entry for Baysian Probability.

You have not clarified anything by converting reasonable doubt to terms of probability. The kind of probability that would be refering to is not mathematical but philosophical, and if you look at the philosophical definition of it it refers you right back to what you think reasonable doubt means. The danger in doing this is that it opens the door to the proclamation of a mathematical probability model which we have no way of knowing actually fits reality. From this model Sklansky will try to force conclusions on us that contradict our best judgement for how reality is really working and if we disagree he will claim we just don't accept the math. Sklansky is not really a math expert though. Real math experts can point out the flaw in this approach.

The flaw comes in setting up the probability model. It's doubtful whether that is even feasible. It's nearly certain that Sklansky is not going to give us one that fits reality.

Without the probability model the "Number" he asks us to provide is just a subjective philosophical concept whose meaning is basically what we already have without it.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority jury system question was a side issue raised by chezlaw, not David. David insists we translate the court's definintion of reasonable doubt into a Number representing a psuedo-probability for chance of innoncence. I object to this.

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue was raised by DS. He was very concerned that allowing freedom on reasonable doubt resulted in one loony causing a big problem. I pointed out that it doesn't.

chez

[Shakes]

I had a criminal law/procedure professor in law school (just a few years ago) who described the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" like this:

"By a preponderance of the evidence" (the civil standard) means more than 50% certain.

"By clear and convincing evidence" (less often the civil standard) means something like 75% or greater certainty.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" means at least 90% certain of guilt in order to convict.

This came from a criminal professor who seemed very much pro-defendant at times. I see no reason to divert from this assessment. However, I do think that juries often use a significantly lower standard of proof in criminal cases.

[David Sklansky]

I gave a precise definition of the pseudo probability as you call it. The juror is asked to imagine that there are 100 trials with the exact same evidence. How many of those defendents IN HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION will be innocent. As it is, the juror is expected to give the answer "not many" before he convicts. So all I am saying is that it would be nice for jurors to be told what number should be considered not many.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave a precise definition of the pseudo probability as you call it. The juror is asked to imagine that there are 100 trials with the exact same evidence. How many of those defendents IN HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION will be innocent. As it is, the juror is expected to give the answer "not many" before he convicts. So all I am saying is that it would be nice for jurors to be told what number should be considered not many.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot imagine how there could possibly be 100 different trials with the exact same evidence. That scenario is a figment of your imagination. When I imagine 100 copies of the 1 situation that is in front of me, all I can see are either 100 guilty defendents or 100 innocent ones. I just don't know which. That is a philosophical difference in how we look at it. I am not bound by your philosophical view nor by the imaginary figment you have conjured.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I gave a precise definition of the pseudo probability as you call it. The juror is asked to imagine that there are 100 trials with the exact same evidence. How many of those defendents IN HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION will be innocent. As it is, the juror is expected to give the answer "not many" before he convicts. So all I am saying is that it would be nice for jurors to be told what number should be considered not many.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot imagine how there could possibly be 100 different trials with the exact same evidence. That scenario is a figment of your imagination. When I imagine 100 copies of the 1 situation that is in front of me, all I can see are either 100 guilty defendents or 100 innocent ones. I just don't know which. That is a philosophical difference in how we look at it. I am not bound by your philosophical view nor by the imaginary figment you have conjured.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply wrong. The thought experiment while contrived is not unimaginable. And it has nothing to do with philosophy. To show this imagine that there is a horse race picking contest based totally on the information in the daily racing form. I'll say the races were already run to avoid a nitpick about past events vs future events.

There are one hundred DIFFERENT races with totally different horses. Eight horses in each race. But amazingly the past performances for horses one throug eight are EXACTLY the same as far as what is in the racing form. In other words all number ones look alike. All number twos look alike. Etc etc. But they are NOT IDENTICAL Horses. And there are differences among them and among the conditions of the races. Some relevant. Such as height and weight. Or what the track bias was that day. But that information isn't available to you. Just like all evidence is not available at the trial.

Anyway you are now asked to pick the winner of each race. Say number three looks much the best. So you pick him. But that means you would pick number three in ALL races. Now your contention if translated to this example would be that number three will either win all races or lose all races. But this would obviously not be the case even if they were running on a straightaway with no racing luck involved.

If you change all the races to two horses races between Innocent and Guilty, I would hope that you would now understand that my thought experiment does not presuppose some debatable "philosophy".

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a criminal law/procedure professor in law school (just a few years ago) who described the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" like this:

"By a preponderance of the evidence" (the civil standard) means more than 50% certain.

"By clear and convincing evidence" (less often the civil standard) means something like 75% or greater certainty.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" means at least 90% certain of guilt in order to convict.

This came from a criminal professor who seemed very much pro-defendant at times. I see no reason to divert from this assessment. However, I do think that juries often use a significantly lower standard of proof in criminal cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ever have somebody hit a gutshot against you on the river in a big pot? That's a little LESS likely than 10%. Your professor's standard would lay an awful lot of bad beats out there.

Edit: Put another way, if you were indicted for a 1st degree felony you did not commit, and you knew there was a 10% chance you would be wrongly convicted and spent not less than 25 years in prison, it would probably be correct to expatriate in order to flee the jurisdiction.

[jogger08152]

The problem with putting a number to the question is that it lends a false air of precision where none should exist. Do you really want the prosecutor to say, "The chance that David didn't do it is LESS THAN 2%!" Especially if you happen to know you in fact didn't commit the crime for which you were convicted?

Another problem with insisting on a numeric standard for guilt when this may be difficult to quantify accurately, is that it might push us away from a "jury of peers" system toward having "professional" jurors, perhaps trained in statistics. And while this might sound nice in terms of accuracy, its disadvantage for society is that it would undo one of the truly strong protections we have against tyrrany.

[PairTheBoard]

I understand your method works well for picking horses. From what I've heard you have perfected the method to such a degree that you are one of the rare successful handicapers. At least I've heard you make bets on the horses and I can't imagine you doing this over a long period of time if you weren't successful at it.

So I'm not really fundamentally opposed to the Baysian approach to probability when it has good applications. The real question is whether the court case is a good application.

A big problem in applying the approach in court cases is the way evidence is gathered. It's Not the kind of straightforward reporting of data like on the horse racing form. Police tend to find suspects and focus in on them. They then Look for circumstances that link the suspect to the crime. This means that not all evidence collected is independent. It's usually only the very initial evidence that is unbiased. What I can't imagine is how the Correlation of evidence so produced can possibly be automatically modeled. The Jury's human judgement for the relative strength of such evidence taken as a whole is vital in my opinion.

For example, in your Shoe Size thread you have people convinced that the appropriate model is 1 million identical cases with 800,000 guilty and 200,000 innocent based on pre-Shoe Size evidence. With say, 1% of the general population matching the new Shoe Size evidence you conclude the Innocent Percent now must be 2000/(2000+800,00) or about 1 quarter of 1 percent. Why do we have the feeling that something is wrong here?

The reason is because it's not an accurate model. Consider the following Model. The police investigate 1 billion similiar cases. They find pre-Shoe Size evidence in 1 million of those cases whereby 800,000 supects are guilty and 200,000 are innocent. Determined to nail the case down, the police find additional circumstances that match all 1 million suspects to the crime. The one and only Trial we are in just happens to be the one where the matching circumstance is the Shoe Size.

Not only do you not get the same Baysian conclusion for this Model but you really don't know how much of this kind of thing was happening for all the other evidence collected in the 1 Billion cases. We're just assuming the Police had 80% accuracy for that evidence. In reality this Correlation of evidence may be happening for a lot of the evidence.

Furthermore, we just happen to be able to see the flaw in your straightforward model for this situation. In general, the flaw may not be so apparent. But if we get the feeling something's wrong it's probably a good idea to pay attention to it.

PairTheBoard

[TomCowley]

The background probability of guilt assuming the non-shoe (non-additional) evidence must be 80%. If it's not, then you are violating the statement of the problem.

If the background probability is 80%, then the probability of guilt, given that shoe size is investigated (before any results are known), is still 80%, unless you're actually arguing that the fact that police INVESTIGATED shoe size (as opposed to hair color, etc) as the last step of previously identical investigations somehow preferentially selects guilty or innocent defendants, which is just obvious nonsense.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.



The chance of anyone actually going to a jury trial who is a real criminal is so miniscual as to be laughable.


?

[/ QUOTE ]

things like assault are almost always plead out. low level violence like a guy beating you and threatening to kill your family over a parking space or some sort of road rage would never ever get to trial.

so my point is your family would be totally unaffected by any jury rules.

[PLOlover]

One reason reasonable doubt isn't defined well in law is that if the definition were to change the convicted defendants could have grounds for appeal and it would be a big mess.

[David Sklansky]

"The problem with putting a number to the question is that it lends a false air of precision where none should exist. Do you really want the prosecutor to say, "The chance that David didn't do it is LESS THAN 2%!" Especially if you happen to know you in fact didn't commit the crime for which you were convicted?"

This particular argument is silly. What's the big difference between saying "his chances of being innocent is less than 2%" and he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[David Sklansky]

"Another problem with insisting on a numeric standard for guilt when this may be difficult to quantify accurately, is that it might push us away from a "jury of peers" system toward having "professional" jurors, perhaps trained in statistics. And while this might sound nice in terms of accuracy, its disadvantage for society is that it would undo one of the truly strong protections we have against tyrrany."

Truly strong? Cmon. A moderate protection perhaps. So how much of a reduction in the error rate of juries would be needed before you would accept the idea of eliminating people who can't think well from the jury pool. Especially if it was only done for whodonit cases.

[PairTheBoard]

I'm not sure the Sklansky Model can even handle "Presumed Innocence". It's been said that the Shoe Size evidence might be enough to convict by itself. I'm not sure the Sklansky Model implies this. In fact, I think the Sklansky Model would give No Weight to the Evidence from a 0 probability of Guilt level, much less move the line to 99% guilty.

Suppose we presume just a little guilt. Say we assume the defendant is from the same city of 1 million people as the murder. Then our imaginary group of defendants are the 1 million people in that city and the defendant is judged to have 1 chance in a million of being the murderer. Now the Shoe Size evidence is presented. That cuts the popluation of the imaginary model down to 10,000 which includes the defendant and the murder. That means the line has been moved from 1 chance in a million to 1 chance in 10,000 of Guilt. Not even close to 99%.

But that is not a real presumption of innocence. A real presumption of innocence should start out with 0% Guilt, not 1 in a million. So lets move it closer to 0%. Let's presume the defendant is from the same continent of 1 billion people as the murderer. After the Shoe Size evidence he then has 1 chance in 10 million of Guilt. Practically nothing. In fact, as we move the starting level for guilt closer and closer to 0% where it should be, the Shoe Size evidence Guilt also goes to 0%.

Presumption of Innocence under Sklansky's Model would mean that noone could ever be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Even if you had a chain of such evidence which Sklansky claims would parlay guilt up to 100%, if we start with a presumed innocence level of 0% none of the circumstantial evidence would move the line.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
True but that may be balanced by you also wanting protection from criminals. Would you want someone who threatened your family to be released when there's no real doubt but one of the jury is an outliner.



The chance of anyone actually going to a jury trial who is a real criminal is so miniscual as to be laughable.


?

[/ QUOTE ]

things like assault are almost always plead out. low level violence like a guy beating you and threatening to kill your family over a parking space or some sort of road rage would never ever get to trial.

so my point is your family would be totally unaffected by any jury rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think plea bargining is still illegal though those government people are trying to introduce it. Whilst the advantages are obvious there's an insidious side to it thats should keep it firmly illegal.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"The problem with putting a number to the question is that it lends a false air of precision where none should exist. Do you really want the prosecutor to say, "The chance that David didn't do it is LESS THAN 2%!" Especially if you happen to know you in fact didn't commit the crime for which you were convicted?"

This particular argument is silly. What's the big difference between saying "his chances of being innocent is less than 2%" and he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not silly at all. There's a massive problem that as soon as numbers are put on things people start believing the numbers, base further decisions firmly on the numbers forgetting they were probably made up in the first place.

The idea that jury members are going to come up with meaningful numbers is a triumph of hope over experience.

chez

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see what your saying but you could make an attempt to figure out its mathematical value on average:

The first attempt to quantify reasonable doubt was made by Simon in 1970. In the attempt, she presented a trial to groups of students. Half of the students decided the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The other half recorded their perceived likelihood, given as a percentage, that the defendant committed the crime. She then matched the highest likelihoods of guilt with the guilty verdicts and the lowest likelihoods of guilt with the innocent verdicts. From this, she gauged that the cutoff for reasonable doubt fell somewhere between the highest likelihood of guilt matched to an innocent verdict and the lowest likelihood of guilt matched to a guilty verdict. From these samples, Simon concluded that the standard was between .70 and .74.

(interesting article- not definitive proof of anything- http://www.valpo.edu/mathcs/verum/papers/2006/ReasonableDoubtFinal.pdf)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what it shows is that people will pick Probability Numbers if they are forced to. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to force them to do so. It also doesn't mean using those numbers in an artificial idealized probability model is a good idea. The conclusions manufactured by that model may very well be far inferior to the Best Judgement of the jurors deliberating on the evidence normally.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It's almost commonplace for liability prosecuting attorneys in civil cases to use the "price in parts" method to obtain punitive damages. By this, I mean that once the defendent is deemed liable and the damages are being tallied, the prosecuting council lists all of the different types of damages that are awarded. For each one, the jurors are often asked to put a number of the value of these damages. In the end they are tallied and awarded (if the judge agrees). It has been determined that this method produces a much larger value than what would be awarded if the jurors put a single price tag on all of the various damages.

Anyway, a practical application where asking the public to place numbers on values that aren't quantifiable is quite dangerous. In this example, it's dangerous because it jacks up the costs of insurance which is nearly immediately passed onto other consumers.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The problem with putting a number to the question is that it lends a false air of precision where none should exist. Do you really want the prosecutor to say, "The chance that David didn't do it is LESS THAN 2%!" Especially if you happen to know you in fact didn't commit the crime for which you were convicted?"

This particular argument is silly. What's the big difference between saying "his chances of being innocent is less than 2%" and he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not silly at all. There's a massive problem that as soon as numbers are put on things people start believing the numbers, base further decisions firmly on the numbers forgetting they were probably made up in the first place.

The idea that jury members are going to come up with meaningful numbers is a triumph of hope over experience.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But I am not asking for people to put a number on it. I am asking for the judge to and want the jurors to merely decide which side of the line they are.

As for your last sentence I agree. I just find it odd that people can simultaneously believe that most people are fuzzy thinkers, yet also think that the important decision of guilt or innocence should be left to them.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But I am not asking for people to put a number on it. I am asking for the judge to and want the jurors to merely decide which side of the line they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do more than just ask the Jurors to deliberate on the totality of evidence and compare their judgement of guilt to the Number assigned by the court. That alone is a bad idea. The Human definition of Reasonable Doubt is something people can understand in human terms. The subjectivity involved in that is a good thing because it connects Justice to a breadth of human experince. Converting to the Number system does not reduce that subjectivity. However, what gets lost in translation by that conversion is likely to reduce the quality of the decision rather than clarify it.

Furthermore, you don't just ask for the Jury to compare their judgement of the totality of evidence to the Number assigned by the court. You ask the Jurors to assign intermediate numbers on pieces and subsets of evidence to use as Inputs into your psuedo-probability model. A model based in part on the unsubstantiated claim of independence of evidence. As djames points out in his post - somewhere in the 3 threads you have going for this topic - Jurors are very inconsistent when forced to parcel things in that way.


[ QUOTE ]

As for your last sentence I agree. I just find it odd that people can simultaneously believe that most people are fuzzy thinkers, yet also think that the important decision of guilt or innocence should be left to them.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be underestimating the power of what you consider human "fuzzy" thinking when applied to complex problems that cannot be easily modeled mathematically. Especially when the thinking is focused by collaboration in a group.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think plea bargining is still illegal though those government people are trying to introduce it. Whilst the advantages are obvious there's an insidious side to it thats should keep it firmly illegal.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

r u serious? every criminal case in the UK goes to trial?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think plea bargining is still illegal though those government people are trying to introduce it. Whilst the advantages are obvious there's an insidious side to it thats should keep it firmly illegal.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

r u serious? every criminal case in the UK goes to trial?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe some exceptions but I don't think so.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The problem with putting a number to the question is that it lends a false air of precision where none should exist. Do you really want the prosecutor to say, "The chance that David didn't do it is LESS THAN 2%!" Especially if you happen to know you in fact didn't commit the crime for which you were convicted?"

This particular argument is silly. What's the big difference between saying "his chances of being innocent is less than 2%" and he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not silly at all. There's a massive problem that as soon as numbers are put on things people start believing the numbers, base further decisions firmly on the numbers forgetting they were probably made up in the first place.

The idea that jury members are going to come up with meaningful numbers is a triumph of hope over experience.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But I am not asking for people to put a number on it. I am asking for the judge to and want the jurors to merely decide which side of the line they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would make no great difference to me because I see the judge's rule here as purely guidance. As long as the jury understands that they are empowered to ignore this guidance then fine (In practice if they feel strongly they will anyway, most are going to make up the number so they will make up a number that fits the instructions and gives the result they were going to give anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
As for your last sentence I agree. I just find it odd that people can simultaneously believe that most people are fuzzy thinkers, yet also think that the important decision of guilt or innocence should be left to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's because the alternative is worse not because the current situation is good.

chez

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
"Another problem with insisting on a numeric standard for guilt when this may be difficult to quantify accurately, is that it might push us away from a "jury of peers" system toward having "professional" jurors, perhaps trained in statistics. And while this might sound nice in terms of accuracy, its disadvantage for society is that it would undo one of the truly strong protections we have against tyrrany."

Truly strong? Cmon. A moderate protection perhaps. So how much of a reduction in the error rate of juries would be needed before you would accept the idea of eliminating people who can't think well from the jury pool. Especially if it was only done for whodonit cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not thrilled that some people have brains with (and forgive the appropriation) "very low horsepower" doing anything important.

That said, how much improvement do you think a change would actually supply?

Many wrongful convictions (for the record: I'm much more concerned with these than wrongful acquittals, although both are worth reducing) will result from judicial malpractice, unreliable witnesses, prosecutorial negligence or misconduct, police negligence or misconduct, etc - in other words, problems not necessarily solvable by a mere change in the makeup of the jury pool.

[cgrohman]

41%

[Money2Burn]

To all,

Which do you feel is worse: An innocent person being convicted of murder, or a murderer being let off? What if the only reason the murder got let off despite overwhelming evidence pointing ot his guilt was becuase some officer didn't follow some miniscule procedural duty?

The reason I ask this is that it seems to me that many more criminals get away without having to pay their proper debt to society than innocent people are convicted yet the focus is always on the case where the innocents are convicted.

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
To all,

Which do you feel is worse: An innocent person being convicted of murder, or a murderer being let off? What if the only reason the murder got let off despite overwhelming evidence pointing ot his guilt was becuase some officer didn't follow some miniscule procedural duty?

The reason I ask this is that it seems to me that many more criminals get away without having to pay their proper debt to society than innocent people are convicted yet the focus is always on the case where the innocents are convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am nearly certain that everyone will say that it's worse for an innocent to be convicted.

Put another way, your answer to david's original post would have to be higher than 50% to logically say otherwise. /images/graemlins/blush.gif


which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. It has to be where protection of society and/or deterrence is of such an overiding objective, as opposed to punishment.

So I'm thinking war-related; spying; treason. Where they can be locked up for a (long) while on 20% suspicion, then tried more thoroughly at a more convenient time.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. It has to be where protection of society and/or deterrence is of such an overiding objective, as opposed to punishment.

So I'm thinking war-related; spying; treason. Where they can be locked up for a (long) while on 20% suspicion, then tried more thoroughly at a more convenient time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work - you've just described the status quo.

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which actually brings me to another point that I was going to bring up before you asked this, is there any crime for which a person should be locked up (used loosely- use your imagination) if they have less than a 50% chance of guilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. It has to be where protection of society and/or deterrence is of such an overiding objective, as opposed to punishment.

So I'm thinking war-related; spying; treason. Where they can be locked up for a (long) while on 20% suspicion, then tried more thoroughly at a more convenient time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work - you've just described the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
As for your last sentence I agree. I just find it odd that people can simultaneously believe that most people are fuzzy thinkers, yet also think that the important decision of guilt or innocence should be left to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's going to make the decision of guilt or innocence then? Until a better solution is provided, jury is the best available.

The beauty of the jury is it only requires one critical thinker saying "hey, there's not enough evidence here" to stop a conviction. Democracy has the exact same flaws you're talking about only it's a lot worse because you need a mere 51% to screw people over rather than 100%. Of course, the system does its damnedest to keep critical thinkers off juries, but that's another matter.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?


I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the states power to arrest and detain has never been in question. It's the new arrest in secret and hold indefinitely without charges that is new.