Can Typical Jurors Really Be Consistent Regarding Doubt?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets rephrase that. A juror presumably thinks he is voting correctly. Thus he thinks that it would be right for other jurors to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I understand you correctly this doesn't follow. Just because I think it correct for me to vote not guilty doesn't mean I think other jurors are correct to vote not guilty.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB -
It's possible that the measure of Evil is not a measure space. It's possible that measures of Evil do not add up. It's possible that the measure of Evil for 100 convictions each with 1% chance of innocence does not equate to the measure of Evil for 1 100% Certain conviction of an innocent. And that's precisely what the Jurors might intuit.


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
Or yet another rephrasel. You are the one person jury, or if you like the judge. You supposedly would convict if one defendent is presented to you but would acquit if they all are at once. Instead they actually all presented to you one after another but you don't realize that and think each one is the last. Smoke clears, you convict them ALL. Even though had you known you would get all the case you would have acquitted them ALL. This absurd result has nothing to do with measure theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that this is not how it's working. A Juror in one trial has no knowledge of anything except the evidence presented for the guilt or innocence of the defendant on trial. That makes each trial Independent. If you redefine the process so that it amounts to 100 seperate but Dependent Trials, in such a way that the 100 trials are equivalent to 1 trial for the 100, then you've Defined your conclusion to be true. You can't criticize one situation by redefining it to be a different situation. The L in your MSL is frayed.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

So you are saying that you agree he should change his vote if he knew about the other trials?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Pair:

Guess what, way back when in graduate school I did take a course in measure theory. I also took probability theory. There are some differences when you talk about a measure space in general, and specifically about a measure space that has a total measure of precisely 1, plus a few other specific properties. Thus introducing measure theory into this topic doesn't make any sense to me since what we have here is a basic straight forward probability measure/exercise that is framed by parameters that we are all familiar with. (By the way, I still have my copy of "Royden" if I'm remembering the author's name correctly.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[PLOlover]

I have no doubt that in 101 seperate trials the juries would use irrational means (how innocent the guy looks, clean cut, etc., good testimony/story) to determine whether their defendant was the innocent one or not.

Over/under on how many get acquitted? I'd put the o/u at 8-10 unless the average age was over 30 then maybe less, the younger the men the better chance they have.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Or yet another rephrasel. You are the one person jury, or if you like the judge. You supposedly would convict if one defendent is presented to you but would acquit if they all are at once. Instead they actually all presented to you one after another but you don't realize that and think each one is the last. Smoke clears, you convict them ALL. Even though had you known you would get all the case you would have acquitted them ALL. This absurd result has nothing to do with measure theory.

[/ QUOTE ]




[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that you agree he should change his vote if he knew about the other trials?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would judge the first trial based only on the evidence presented on the guilt or innocence of the defendant in front of him. His job is to judge that trial Independently of anything else. If he were then asked to Judge a second trial for another defendant in the same case he would Recuse himself and refuse to judge it. The reason is because the second trial would be dependent on the first.

The proper analogy if you want the same Judge to judge 100 trials is to make them 100 different cases with identical evidence. You might notice that in that situation not only is it possible that the Judge sees 100 guilty defendants, but he could also see 100 innocent ones. They would be Independent. And that's the situation for the original Juror that you criticized. That's Juror's case is independent of any considerations other than the evidence in front of her for that one defendent. If you want to make up different scenarios to criticize, go ahead. But you can't criticize that one on the basis of another one.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Pair:

Guess what, way back when in graduate school I did take a course in measure theory. I also took probability theory. There are some differences when you talk about a measure space in general, and specifically about a measure space that has a total measure of precisely 1, plus a few other specific properties. Thus introducing measure theory into this topic doesn't make any sense to me since what we have here is a basic straight forward probability measure/exercise that is framed by parameters that we are all familiar with. (By the way, I still have my copy of "Royden" if I'm remembering the author's name correctly.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

Then I think you would have had an idea what I was talking about here,

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me it depends on the measure of Evil you place on convicting the innocent man. Is that the kind of measure on which you can make EV calculations? I think that's debatable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about measuring "Evil". Does the measure of Evil "add up" like a mathematical measure? Just because we have a function m on the measurable subsets of the space {1,2} that we might think of as a measure, doesn't mean we have a well defined Measure Space. For example,

m{1] = 1
m{2} = 1
m{1,2} = 100

Do we really know how "Evil" adds up?

That was my point. Let's not just assume that things always add up like EV's. Especially when we're talking about something so far afield from math as Evil.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I was talking about the juror who would not judge the other cases but realized that others were. And also realized that the exact same evidence would be presented against each of the 101 individually. Under these constraints you must surely agree that if she would acquit 101 she should acquit one.

[David Sklansky]

"He would judge the first trial based only on the evidence presented on the guilt or innocence of the defendant in front of him. His job is to judge that trial Independently of anything else. If he were then asked to Judge a second trial for another defendant in the same case he would Recuse himself and refuse to judge it. The reason is because the second trial would be dependent on the first."

But that is logically RIDICULOUS. So WHAT if the second trial is dependent on the first. If he thought that the proper verdict for the first was guilty, so should he for the second. He might recuse himself because it was the law or because he is now worried he will have to judge all of them but if there was just one more defendent he has no reason to change or not render a verdict, given the identical evidence.

Before I continue this debate you will have to find me one other person who agrees with you.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about the juror who would not judge the other cases but realized that others were. And also realized that the exact same evidence would be presented against each of the 101 individually. Under these constraints you must surely agree that if she would acquit 101 she should acquit one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not describing the reality of the court case situation. So you have divorced your model from anything that sheds light on the psychology of the real life juror.

PairTheBoard