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.

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.

It only has to be different enough that there's a significant chance of one person saying it isn't likely enough. Given how bad people are with extreme values of probability, this wouldn't be that surprising.

Also, nobody has ever said where the cutoff is. Two jury members could both think there's a 97% chance of guilt, and one thinks the cutoff is 95%, while the other thinks it's 99%, and they'll disagree on whether the defendant should be considered innocent or guilty.

3Thomas14y

You are right. The suspense isn't about the probability, but about the probability times value. Where the value is the sentence or the pardon. Something big is at stake here. When the maximal sentence is $100, then there is no big suspense no matter how far beyond reasonable doubt the case is.

33

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? - Richard Dawkins [link]

33

33

33

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? - Richard Dawkins [link]

33

33