Beyond Reasonable Doubt? - Richard Dawkins [link]

Dreaded_Anomaly

A new article looking at the jury system rationally and scientifically.

Excerpt:

Courtroom dramas accurately portray the suspense that hangs in the air when the jury returns and delivers its verdict. All, including the lawyers on both sides and the judge, are on tenterhooks and hold their breath while they wait to hear the foreman of the jury pronounce the words, “Guilty” or “Not guilty”. However, if the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” means what it says, there should be no doubt of the outcome in the mind of anybody who has sat through the same trial as the jury. That includes the judge who, as soon as the jury has delivered its verdict, is prepared to give the order for execution — or release the prisoner without a stain on his character.

And yet, before the jury returned, there was enough “reasonable doubt” in that same judge’s mind to keep him on tenterhooks waiting for the verdict.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the verdict is beyond reasonable doubt, in which case there should be no suspense while the jury is out. Or there is real, nail-biting suspense, in which case you cannot claim that the case has been proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.

This really struck me as something that could have been on LW's front page.

A new article looking at the jury system rationally and scientifically.

Excerpt:

Courtroom dramas accurately portray the suspense that hangs in the air when the jury returns and delivers its verdict. All, including the lawyers on both sides and the judge, are on tenterhooks and hold their breath while they wait to hear the foreman of the jury pronounce the words, “Guilty” or “Not guilty”. However, if the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” means what it says, there should be no doubt of the outcome in the mind of anybody who has sat through the same trial as the jury. That includes the judge who, as soon as the jury has delivered its verdict, is prepared to give the order for execution — or release the prisoner without a stain on his character.

And yet, before the jury returned, there was enough “reasonable doubt” in that same judge’s mind to keep him on tenterhooks waiting for the verdict.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the verdict is beyond reasonable doubt, in which case there should be no suspense while the jury is out. Or there is real, nail-biting suspense, in which case you cannot claim that the case has been proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.

This really struck me as something that could have been on LW's front page.

There's a mathematical law about this. If you split something into groups, there will always be a dividing line. Move it within epsilon, and it crosses the line.

Whether or not they're guilty may be beyond resonable doubt without whether or not its beyond resonable doubt being beyond reasonable doubt.

For example, if we define "reasonable doubt" to be < 99% chance of guilt, then if you think there's a 99% chance of them being guilty, you're pretty sure they're guilty, but there's about a 50% chance of them being convicted, based on whether the jury considers it slightly more likely or slightly less likely.

(This sort of renormalization problem shows up a lot when trying to set up decision problems where baselines are unknown.)

2tgb14y

This is such an important counter-point that I am disappointed that Dawkins failed to see it and that none of the posts (at least on the first page) of the original article mention it. On the plus side, this gives me evidence (although slight, since there is selection bias) that LW can go beyond traditional rationalist movements.

13[anonymous]14y

It seems that the reasonable assessment of P(guilty) should only rarely fall so close to the cut-off line that there could be serious doubt about the jury's verdict. So if the suspense is common, that still demonstrates that the assessments of probability held by different case participants are all over the place.

33

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? - Richard Dawkins [link]

33

33

33

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? - Richard Dawkins [link]

33

33