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/pa...oubtFinal.pdf)