Eugine_Nier comments on Hearsay, Double Hearsay, and Bayesian Updates - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Mass_Driver 16 February 2012 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (105)

Comments (105)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw 16 February 2012 09:44:57AM 1 point [-]

A few observations:

  • Literally 100% of people who ever lived have done multiple things which unfriendly legal system might treat as crimes, starting from simple ones like watching youtube videos uploaded without consent of their copyright owners, making mistakes on tax forms, reckless driving, defamation, hate speech, and going as far as the legal system wants to go.
  • Vast majority of suspects in US do not get any trial whatsoever, they're forced to accept punishment or risk vastly higher punishment if they want to take their chance of trial.
  • There are good reasons to believe few trials that happen are extremely far from any kind of fairness, and they're stacked to give persecution an advantage. Just compare massive funding of police and prosecutors with puny funding of defense attorneys.
  • US has extraordinarily high number of prisoners per capita. Looking at crime rates alone, it does not have extraordinarily high levels of serious crime per capita. There's no way most people in prisons can be anything but innocent (or "guilty" of minor and irrelevant "crimes" pretty much everybody is "guilty" of and persecuted on legal system's whims).
  • Unless you believe that young black men in US are the most criminal group in history of the world, most of them who are in prisons must be innocent by pure statistics.
Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 February 2012 10:52:16PM 0 points [-]

There are good reasons to believe few trials that happen are extremely far from any kind of fairness, and they're stacked to give persecution an advantage. Just compare massive funding of police and prosecutors with puny funding of defense attorneys.

On the other hand, the prosecution needs to convince twelve jurors, the defense only needs to convince one.

Comment author: TobyBartels 03 March 2012 08:32:51AM *  0 points [-]

On the other hand, the prosecution needs to convince twelve jurors, the defense only needs to convince one.

Not necessarily. If the 11 and the 1 hold fast, then this results in a mistrial, not an acquittal; so really the defence needs to convince only 1 but every time, while the prosecution needs to convince all 12 but only once. (And in fact the 1 will be under enormous pressure from the 11 to convert before that point is reached.) ETA: Of course ‘every time’ is not forever; eventually the prosecution will give up.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit