= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MartinB 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)
I think Bayesian justice would result in a larger percentage of defendants being found guilty at trial, because instead of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", the prosecution would only have to prove "expected value of conviction > expected value of no conviction".
EDIT: On the other hand, if someone committed an awful crime, but can convince you that they won't do it again; or if they might, but they pay a lot of taxes; let them go.
If the standard used is value to society, then if the defendant is judged to have no value to society, and executions are cheap, then convict and execute if p(defendent will commit more crime) > 0. If the defendant has a net cost to society, execute regardless.
If government functions via redistribution of taxation, then most people have a negative value to society, since most of the government's income comes from the top 10% or so. Therefore, execute the bottom 90%. Tax, and redistribute among the survivors. Again, the bottom 90% has negative value. Execute. Repeat. You eventually converge on a single citizen, whose expected contribution to society (minus his cost to society) is zero by some measures. At that point, flip a coin.
There is still a whole bag of philosophical problems to be solved regarding punishment. Do you punish to prevent the same person from doing something again, do you punish as retribution for the victims (then it doesnt make sense to tax those to provide prisons), or do you want to set a sign against others for not doing crime. Atm there are many inconsistent terms put on various charges, which merit resolving. I read a few times that the legal system works because most people are aware of punishment, not because it punishes most punishworthy deeds, or because its particularly fair. In that case a bayesian system might have very little practical difference from the current (except for all those not guilty). A decent reform would include some liability for attorneys to withhold evidence, or threaten the accused and such. Maybe someone will put up a whole thought out concept.