Can Typical Jurors Really Be Consistent Regarding Doubt?

[David Sklansky]

Almost everyone thinks that a 99 percent chance of guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. Fine in theory. But do they mean it?

A hundred masked robbers invade Tiffanys, and clean them out. No one dies but some clerks are badly hurt. They run into an abandoned subway station where they have an escape planned. Its all captured from start to finish on multiple cameras.

The authorities thwart the escape completely. They are sealed off and trapped undergroung. And eventually marched out one by one. There is no physical evidence linking these individual people to the crime but there are multiple ways of proving that all hundred went underground and had no way of escaping. Period. A slam dunk conviction for everyone.

Except for one thing. When the police go down there they find 101 people. One guy was there exploring. They believe that because all 101 claim to be that guy. And there is nothing to indicate who the real innocent one is. (PLEASE don't bring up the fact that this is admittedly a farfetched assumption).

So now comes the trial. Perhaps for all 101 at once. The jury must convict or acquit them all. Would they do it? If they don't aren't they being inconsistent with their earlier pronouncements?

But the better question is what about if there were 101 different trials? What percentage would convict their one defendent on the one piece of evidence that he was underground? (Don't talk to me about who fidgets in their seats please.) Interesting question. More interesting yet though is the almost certain fact that some juries would convict and others wouldn't. With the undeniably exact same, doubt as to guilt. Do you think that's OK? Chezlaw does.

[born2ramble]

Not Okay and I would find it very surprising that a jury would convict. In America, the vast majority would rather see 100 guilty men go free (unless some heinous violence occurred) than one innocent go to jail. In the earlier thread, I think everyone was working their way through the process of convicting a person and brought already-locked-in ideas to the table.

When you get to this trial though, and are certain you'd be putting an innocent in jail, extremely few (<.25%) Americans pull the trigger. You'd have to deal with putting an innocent man in jail for the rest of your life, media pressure, and other influences I'm probably not considering.

Make it 10,000:1, or add some more violence in this first case, and we've got a tough spot.

[Scary_Tiger]

Did you watch Boston Legal last night? Same situation, two children are at home with their drunk of a father, one of them shoots him. In court, both claim it was the other who shot the father. It was actually at the suggestion of the lawyers, clearly a subversion of justice, but whatever.

Spoiler in white: <font color="white">The jury acquits both of them, lawyers drink and pat each other on the back. So according to Hollywood a 50% chance was enough, even for this more serious crime.</font>

As for the OP's example. I'd convict and feel 99.0099 last four digits repeating percent good about it. There would be far too few convictions and justice would not be served the vast majority of the time if the courts required what they say they do to convict.

[chezlaw]

They should hope I'm on the jury because I'd vote not guilty. this would remain true even if there were an infinite number of them and one explorer.

You have to appaud there brilliance in avoiding any evidence that links them. Well done, next case.

If for ome bzarre reason they are tried individually then sure some will get lucky some unlucky. No point hiding the inherent variance in any justice system by spreading the luck equally amongst them.

chez

[djames]

If there were enough cameras to capture the 100 villains, but not distinguish them from the 1 extra unknown captured in the subway, then I don't think it would be unreasonable for a jury to assume there were actually 101 villains with 1 escaping the cameras. In my opinion, the chance of 1 innocent explorer being in an abandoned subway station who can not provide an alibi seems more rare (using my gut probability model) than the chance that multiple cameras which could count but not identify 100 villains actually just missed the 101st villain.

So, I'd convict all 101.

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were enough cameras to capture the 100 villains, but not distinguish them from the 1 extra unknown captured in the subway, then I don't think it would be unreasonable for a jury to assume there were actually 101 villains with 1 escaping the cameras. In my opinion, the chance of 1 innocent explorer being in an abandoned subway station who can not provide an alibi seems more rare (using my gut probability model) than the chance that multiple cameras which could count but not identify 100 villains actually just missed the 101st villain.

So, I'd convict all 101.

[/ QUOTE ]i hate answers like this.

what do you think about this moral qualm?
well, i'd change the situation in such a way that the dilemma did not exist, then answer it easily.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
In America, the vast majority would rather see 100 guilty men go free (unless some heinous violence occurred) than one innocent go to jail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be so sure. Most people will say something like that, but society has proven to be much more outraged when someone perceived to be guilty goes free than when someone innocent is wrongly punished. More social unrest and public outrage was evident after the Rodney King and OJ Simpson verdicts than when, for example, DNA evidence proves someone innocent after many years of incarceration (which has happened many times in recent years). I wouldn't underestimate the American lust for vengeance and punishment.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were enough cameras to capture the 100 villains, but not distinguish them from the 1 extra unknown captured in the subway, then I don't think it would be unreasonable for a jury to assume there were actually 101 villains with 1 escaping the cameras. In my opinion, the chance of 1 innocent explorer being in an abandoned subway station who can not provide an alibi seems more rare (using my gut probability model) than the chance that multiple cameras which could count but not identify 100 villains actually just missed the 101st villain.

So, I'd convict all 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the OP forgot to mention that there was a sign on the subway that said exploring was a crime and that the punishment was the exact same as for robbery. So this is an easy one, convict them all, who cares which one gets the exploration charge and which the robbery charge.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
i hate answers like this.

what do you think about this moral qualm?
well, i'd change the situation in such a way that the dilemma did not exist, then answer it easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you have a point, frequently questions about moral qualms are dumb because they are broken, unrealistic situations for which people have zero moral sense, and so attacking the realism of the situation is a perfectly valid response. I'm not saying this is necessarily one of them.

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were enough cameras to capture the 100 villains, but not distinguish them from the 1 extra unknown captured in the subway, then I don't think it would be unreasonable for a jury to assume there were actually 101 villains with 1 escaping the cameras. In my opinion, the chance of 1 innocent explorer being in an abandoned subway station who can not provide an alibi seems more rare (using my gut probability model) than the chance that multiple cameras which could count but not identify 100 villains actually just missed the 101st villain.

So, I'd convict all 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to completely ignore the premises of the original question, then why don't you just say that you'll call Superman and have him stop the crime before it ever happens.


I'd probably vote not guilty.