The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Redskins gesture offensive. (6 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..21~22~23~24~25..27~28~29 [Next]
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16347 Posts

Profile of tommy
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

- Blackstone's ratio
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5138 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Aug 26, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And a lot of those acquittals are due to shabby police work and less than adequate prosecutors. My argument is with those who blame it on defense attorneys.

+1

Exactly where the blame for the OJ verdict should be, in my opinion.
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
- Blackstone's ratio


Alexander Volokh cites an apparent questioning of the principle, with the tale of a Chinese professor who responds, "Better for whom?"
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
But is it better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer?
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2892 Posts

Profile of lunatik
With 100 guilty escaping, more than 1 person in society will suffer with them being free.
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I'd like to see that stats on all these guilty people who are supposedly escaping. That said, is the solution just to imprison everyone your suspicious of?
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not but I'll answer for myself anyway.

No, that's not the solution and that's not my point. My point is, I think the same as Lobo's. With an imperfect system, there will be some number, as small as 'reasonably' possible, of innocent found guilty. That is better than 0% innocent people being found guilty with the required 100% guilty going free. Balducci has a problem with 3-4%. (As do you, I think) is there a number greater thatn 0% that you'll accept? Because if there isn't, no one gets convicted.
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
While we are at it, let's get rid of double jeopardy also.

BURLINGTON, Vermont — A Vermont man likely won't face prison after calling police and confessing to murder after being acquitted of the charge in 2004, according to a report from the Burlington Free Press.
Isaac Turnbaugh, of Randolph, Vt., was found not guilty in 2004 of first-degree murder in the killing of Declan Lyons, of Montpelier, Vt. Lyons, 24, was shot dead in 2002 while working at the American Flatbread Co., a local pizza restaurant.

Turnbaugh, 28, phoned the Randolph police in July and confessed to shooting Lyons in the head with a rifle.
Although Turnbaugh allegedly admitted to the crime more than once, the state won't be able to do anything about it, said Attorney General William Sorrell, whose office prosecuted the original murder charge.
"You only get one bite of the apple. It's double jeopardy," Sorrell said in an interview with the Free Press. "You can go out on the courthouse steps and confess, and the state can't do anything."
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Just do away with the entire Constitution while you're at it. I'm sure you can find outlying things to object about regarding every article and amendment.
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
At this point in time I don't feel like purchasing nor reading the book, but this one may have some relevant data:

Not Guilty, Are the Acquitted Innocent?
Daniel Givelber and Amy Farrell

http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.a......mZpog-Uk
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Of course an acquittal doesn't necessarily mean innocence. Look at the OJ case. It simply means that the State did not meet its burden of proof to the satisfaction of a jury.

But rather than telling us what parts of the Constitution and we should do away with, why not tell us what we should replace them with?

What should be the standard of proof in criminal cases?
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
To minimize the potential for haranguing me, let me state what may not be obvious. I love my country and abide by its laws. I also believe it is among the best in the world. However, that doesn't preclude the need for change. Things that are grounded in the 18th century mindset may have to adapt better and faster to our current day society and its unique issues. We should always strive to improve things even if it means shaking the status quo. I also believe the pendulum has swung too much towards individual freedoms and as a consequence society as a whole is suffering.

There I just executed my 1st Amendment right.
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
What y'all are discussing, in its most basic form, is hypothesis testing. The system isn't imperfect per se; rather, it deals with decisions made under uncertainty.

The null hypothesis (the one you’re trying to reject) is that the person is innocent of the crime of which they’ve been accused; the alternative hypothesis is that they’re guilty. You calculate the value of a test statistic (the evidence) and compare it to a critical value (the threshold); if the value of the test statistic exceeds the critical value, you reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis (you find the person guilty); otherwise, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (you find the person not guilty).

Inherent in all hypothesis testing are two errors: Type I (rejecting a true null hypothesis) and Type II (failing to reject a false null hypothesis). Here, a Type I error is convicting an innocent person, and a Type II error is acquitting a guilty person.

Before you test your hypothesis, you establish a level of significance for the test: this is the probability of committing a Level I error, and the critical value (the threshold) depends on the level of significance you set. A higher level of significance leads to an increased probability of a Type I error and a decreased probability of a Type II error; a lower level of significance leads to a decreased probability of a Type I error and an increased probability of a Type II error.

The only way that you can decrease the probabilities of both types of error is to get more data (i.e., gather more evidence); at some point, the data become too expensive to gather further. Thus, generally, the probabilities of both types of errors are nonzero.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Slowkeenuh-

I wouldn't harangue you. I'm enjoying the discussion.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, slowkneenuh wrote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
- Blackstone's ratio


Alexander Volokh cites an apparent questioning of the principle, with the tale of a Chinese professor who responds, "Better for whom?"


Any relation to Eugene Volokh?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
S2000-

Try explaining that to a lawmaker!
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
LobowolfXXX - His brother.
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
S2000-

Try explaining that to a lawmaker!

I wouldn't do that for $5.

You never did respond to my question (a serious one) about the codification of reasonable vs. unreasonable doubt.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Sorry, I missed it. It's a very difficult thing to codify, if that is even possible. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the evidence, the credibility of witness testimony, etc. In that sense it is very subjective, so it would be nearly impossible to devise an objective test that would be applicable to all cases.

Just Google "Jury instruction reasonable doubt" and you'll find numerous instructions that courts throughout the country use to convey the meaning of reasonable doubt. I think you'll see the difficulty in codifying it. Here is a sample from Connecticut:

Quote:
The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.2 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.3 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.4

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty.5 The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in your minds, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.


http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.2-3.htm
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Mathematicians and philosophers should never be permitted to sit on juries.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Redskins gesture offensive. (6 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..21~22~23~24~25..27~28~29 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL