= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on The Cameron Todd Willingham test - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (83)
To begin with "beyond reasonable doubt" needs to be replaced with "beyond X% certainty" where 100-X is whatever percent of innocent convictions we're comfortable with.
I think the certainty required should probably vary based on the length of the sentence (or the value of the penalty in civil cases, etc.).
"whatever percent of innocent convictions we're comfortable with." Isn't the right way to do it. You need to weigh the expected utilities and go with that.
For example, say we have someone suspected of murder, and you think its only 20% sure that he did it, but executing him given that he's the guilty saves an expected 10 lives, then you do it. If there was a second suspect (same p(guilt)) and you know only one of them is guilty, then you'd execute them both.
There are all sorts of disclaimers that could be added, but the point is that the threshold isn't arbitrary, and intuitions don't get close to the right answer.
What I said to Phil:
You are conflating Bayesian justice with utilitarian justice.