Important Evidence Evaluation Scenario/Question

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that every time I try to make a question easier on the eye by putting it in story format, people focus on the wrong issues. All I want to know is whether the judge is correct in seriously reducing his opinion as to the defendent's innocence based on his discovery that the shoe size is much rarer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I got that you are trying to shroud the questions enough to elicit more reality based opinions. And I really wasn't trying to be polemic, just because. WHen one has thought in terms of 'justice in practice' it becomes hard to overlook some things about the way the question was framed. I think its better to just ask some question plainly- especially pertaining to law.

I guess you are asking IF it is appropriate for the judge to deem 5% doubt of guilt based on a common shoe size, then is it appropriate to reduce that doubt to 1% based on an uncommon shoe size (which is when I was trying to figure out how uncommon is 12D?) and is 1% insufficient doubt of guilt, whereas 5% is sufficient doubt of guilt?

I think that a somewhat less common shoe size is just as circumstantial as a common one. ANd I think that if 5% is a reasonably sufficient amount of doubt to make one believe a person should not have been convicted of a crime, than 1% should be as well.

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the shoe size in relation to the body of evidence. It is a matter of 1 % and 5% as it relates to his confidence level. He is now at least 5 times more confident (or less confident - not sure how the OP is stated - you get what I am saying hopefully.)

The judge is definitely correct “in seriously reducing his opinion”. (The question what he does about this is another matter.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I definitely understand what DS is trying to say, and I understand the point you're making.

I'm simply pointing out that if one endeavors to isolate a matter of logic within the confines of a hypothetical, he is probably much better off doing so using a hypothetical that doesn't interject so many auxiliary variables by default.

[Bibigon]

[ QUOTE ]
That depends entirely on the significance the shoe size played in his initial decision-making process when contrasted against the body of fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is correct.

Lets say the shoe-size was almost irrelevant at first for him, precisely because the initial shoe-size was so common. If the odds of the guy having this size now decrease from 10% to say 2%, then he's going to be correct in this scenario in reducing his evaluation of the likelihood of innocence.

On the other hand, lets say the shoe-size evidence played a key part in the initial decision making, then still, reducing the likelihood of error there is also going to be helpful.

I'm not sure how it's possible that the reduction is mistaken.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that every time I try to make a question easier on the eye by putting it in story format, people focus on the wrong issues. All I want to know is whether the judge is correct in seriously reducing his opinion as to the defendent's innocence based on his discovery that the shoe size is much rarer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how much rarer 12B is than 10D. But it seems impossible that the matching shoe size could be critical enough in the first place (given its circumstantial nature) such that the rarer match could significantly alter the judge's assessment.

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know how much rarer 12B is than 10D. But it seems impossible that the matching shoe size could be critical enough in the first place (given its circumstantial nature) such that the rarer match could significantly alter the judge's assessment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but remember... According to DS, we're supposed to ignore every other aspect of the premise and just focus on the sterile logic motivates the ultimate decision [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that every time I try to make a question easier on the eye by putting it in story format, people focus on the wrong issues. All I want to know is whether the judge is correct in seriously reducing his opinion as to the defendent's innocence based on his discovery that the shoe size is much rarer

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This is why I seriously mangle everything that you write. Nobody gets it (but me). The judge is correct if the rarety of the shoe size is such that it allows him to reduce his evaluation by 4%. Given that the judge was able to determine that the shoe size originaly allowed him to determine that the defendant had a 5% chance of being innocent I assume he is smart enough (and was not given any information to the contrary) to determine that the correct information reduces the probability to 1%. If I was a math guy I'd show you the math proof. Yes, he was correct.

leaponthis

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't know how much rarer 12B is than 10D. But it seems impossible that the matching shoe size could be critical enough in the first place (given its circumstantial nature) such that the rarer match could significantly alter the judge's assessment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but remember... According to DS, we're supposed to ignore every other aspect of the premise and just focus on the sterile logic motivates the ultimate decision [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe that we should examine one argument in isolation before we get ourselves distracted by simultaneously arguing about seven others?

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]

Or maybe that we should examine one argument in isolation before we get ourselves distracted by simultaneously arguing about seven others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe that one argument is inextricable from the seven others, thus arguing it in a vacuum cannot possibly yield an accurate conclusion?

[ALawPoker]

I'm saying I don't think this type of evidence is fundamentally important enough that the rarity of the match could matter so drastically.

Maybe I'm not making any sense, it's late (for me).

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Or maybe that we should examine one argument in isolation before we get ourselves distracted by simultaneously arguing about seven others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe that one argument is inextricable from the seven others, thus arguing it in a vacuum cannot possibly yield an accurate conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's asking if the thought process itself is valid. Whether it leads to the correct answer in this specific hypothetical is a different discussion.