Innocent vs. Guilty

[labrys 0]

Quote

Tougher question to deal with, I admit. I'll concede that the right to freedom in this case is balanced against society's needs. But all the other rights a criminal defendant gets, right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against him, etc., are not diminished. That's what I mean when I say that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve rights.

Feel free to have the last word on this. Nice debating with you!

Okay, I'm going to try to word my opinion in tighter terms.

A person standing accused of a crime in a court of law is not facing the part of our legal system that is designed to preserve individual rights. They are facing the part of the legal system that is designed to protect society as their primary mandate.

There is another branch of the legal system that's designed to make sure that the individual's personal rights were not violated in the process. That's our appellate system.

I disagree that the court of law trying to prosecute a crime has the indivdual's rights over the rights of society as a priority.

I agree that the appellate system holds indivudual rights as a priority, but they have conceded that the courts of law can revoke some rights in some cases.

I don't think we disagree as much as we might think we disagree

Owned by Remi #?

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society?

IIRC, the words "reasonable" and "doubt" appear nowhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments. "Unreasonable" appears, in respect of searches and seizures.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

0.00%.
Injustice is injustice, and it's always wrong.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

0.00%.
Injustice is injustice, and it's always wrong.

ok - note that justice is also the guilty being punished in addition to the innocent being let free


then in the interest of justice, let's have your ideas on how we guarantee a perfect record of guilty getting thrown in jail and innocent not

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

0.00%.
Injustice is injustice, and it's always wrong.

A person is found guilty based on the quantity and or quality of evidence. There are cases where a guilty and innocent person have the same quantity and or quality of evidence against them. In these cases we must render the same innocent or guilty verdict for both people. So here is how the poll works ...

The lower the number the higher the qauntity and or quality of evidence must be. The higher the number the lower the quantity and or quality of evidence must be. 0.00% is stating that the evidence must be of such high quantity and or quality that almost everyone is found innocent. 100.00% is stating that the evidence must be of such low quantity and or quality that almost everyone is found guilty. The idea is to pick a percent in which you believe most innocent people will be found innocent (because the quality and or quantity of evidence has to be so high that it is unlikely that an innocent person would have that evidence against them) while at the same time most guilty people will be found quilty (because the quality and or quantity of evidence can be so low that is is likely that a guilty person would have that evidence against them).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

0.00% is stating that the evidence must be of such high quantity and or quality that almost everyone is found innocent.

I disagree with the "almost" statement. 0.00% mean everybody goes free regardless of the amount or quality of the evidence. Ditto, 100% means everybody is jailed "just in case".

there's no "almost" with absolute statements, just people blinding themselves against reality - posing

0.00% will drive us faster to a big brother type of culture (or, the other extreme) a pure vigilante type of culture than any other action out there. That type of statement indicates a complete disregard of how real world processes and man made systems work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

0.00% is stating that the evidence must be of such high quantity and or quality that almost everyone is found innocent.

I disagree with the "almost" statement. 0.00% mean everybody goes free regardless of the amount or quality of the evidence. Ditto, 100% means everybody is jailed "just in case".

there's no "almost" with absolute statements, just people blinding themselves against reality - posing

I say almost because I believe there are situations that existed, exist, or could exist that a guilty person could be found guilty and an innocent person couldn't be found guilty in the same situation.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I find it hard to believe an innocent person would be found guilty or the guilty person be found innocent of this crime.

mass hysteria or conspiracy against the criminal

claiming insanity but really sane (prove it beyond doubt)

hypnotized or drugged to do it (prove it beyond all doubt)

actually the judge was a mass killer and he did it to save the rest of the courtroom - but no one knows except the accused (prove he's lying)



once you take away the risk factor (that's what 'reasonable' means, then any unreasonable excuse must be considered as POSSIBLE. possible means risk, and risk tolerance means both alpha and beta type errors.)

assumption - innocent
alpha risk - guilty verdict when innocent
beta risk - not guilty verdict when guilty
truth - guilty when guilty, not guilty when not guilty

these guys want a 0% alpha risk, AND a 0% beta risk (and these are skydivers for gosh sakes). That means you need an infinite amount of evidence to come to any conclusion........not a lot, not a preponderance, but an infinite. You think the courts are slow now, or that we have a potential for big brother now.........

once you go down the all or nothing reasoning path, any wacky reason is good enough to let the criminal go - that's what 0.00% defines - it really is "beyond any imaginable doubt"

some people just aren't strong enough to acknowledge that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it hard to believe an innocent person would be found guilty or the guilty person be found innocent of this crime.

mass hysteria

claiming insanity but not

hypnotized or drugged to do it

actually the judge was a mass killer and he did it to save the rest of the courtroom - but no one knows


once you go down the all or nothing reasoning path, any wacky reason is good enough to let the criminal go - that's what 0.00% defines - it really is "beyond any imaginable doubt"

some people just aren't strong enough to acknowledge that

An then the black and white mixed and made gray.

Quote

0.00% will drive us faster to a big brother type of culture (or, the other extreme) a pure vigilante type of culture than any other action out there. That type of statement indicates a complete disregard of how real world processes and man made systems work.

I vote that it would be chaos (due to immoral behavior) at 0.00% and chaos (due to revolution) at 100.00%.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I vote that it would be chaos (due to immoral behavior) at 0.00% and chaos (due to revolution) at 100.00%.

0.00% let everybody go - loss of trust in safety and justice system, we turn into a vigilante society where we are dominated by vengeance rather than justice - chaos, violent chaos

100% lock up everybody - revolution, it's an unjust state. In fact lock up everybody for a single crime - prove you didn't do it.....chaos ensues

I agree with you

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

I haven't kept up, so this may have already been addressed:

To the people who voted for zero innocent people going to jail - are you also saying that no one should go to jail unless we are absolutely, undeniable, completely certain that they are guilty of the crimes for which they are charged?

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

are you also saying that no one should go to jail unless we are absolutely, undeniable, completely certain that they are guilty of the crimes for which they are charged?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

"absolutely, undeniable, completely certain"?

"pretty close"... "we are pretty close to 100% sure that we've got the right guy"... "Of course mistakes happen - the law is a human process"..."we want to be as close as we can to "completely certain" ......

I see nothing in your text that answers her comment

You answer lies with the reasonable doubt crowd here - an acceptance of a very small risk, but the risk must exist. Her question was to those that answered 0%. Your response is CLEARLY not a vote for 0%

her question is to the absolutists out there that are too scared to quantify their risk tolerance in order to have a reasonably safe society.

what is hard about the concept and consequences of 0.00000000000000000%

I wonder if those people think that a judge has a little counter on his desk and every 10,000 court case he'd ON PURPOSE put the innocent man in jail. In that case, I'd say there's no purpose here in the debate until people get a grip.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

I just as scared as those that voted in the 5% to 10% column.

My god people, there will be mistakes, but are you really willing to tolerate that High a level of mistakes in the court system? Would you actually agree to a worse level of efficiency than we have today.

we're so stuck on the dopey 0.0% discussion that people are missing the other end of the chart......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[orribolollie 0]

Mistakes will always be made. I say get rid of the death sentence.
At least an innocently imprisoned man can be freed. Post humous acquital is fine for relatives, not a lot of fun for the dead guy!

Hmmm..just thinking, maybe I dont say get rid of it re. Saddam Hussain. Can you still keep it for such occasions?

[livendive 8]

Quote

lots of people voting 0 - I wonder what imaginary land they live in.

While 0 may not be possible, it should certainly be the goal. The alternative is to say that some number besides 0 is acceptable and requires no further improvement.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

While 0 may not be possible, it should certainly be the goal. The alternative is to say that some number besides 0 is acceptable and requires no further improvement.

Blues,
Dave

[tbrown 26]

The entire purpose of a jury of one's peers is to protect the innocent. Otherwise why not just grab a red hot poker and have the wound examined by some witch doctor. Or maybe be thrown in a pond, if you drown you're innocent, if you float you must be made of wood and therefore should be burned. I mean WTF, do you actually need to quantify this shit ?

I've served on criminal juries, I've even signed a guilty verdict as the Foreman. It's a heavy responsibility to look some poor fucker in the eye and know you're sending him to prison over YOUR signature. The fact that you know he's guilty isn't much help.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

While 0 may not be possible, it should certainly be the goal. The alternative is to say that some number besides 0 is acceptable and requires no further improvement.

What I get from this (good reply, at least the first sentence) is that the 0 voters are only doing it as a gesture or a symbolic vote, thus the poll is absolutely worthless since that catagory is essentially full of misrepresentations. However, I'll withdraw the implied previous statements that those that vote zero are simpletons in their lack of understanding processes, rather they are just overwhelmed by their desire to make symbolic gestures....

I agree with that first sentence and will always vote for the smallest error that is NOT zero........

I completely disagree with the second sentence that implies anyone who votes other than zero doesn't want to see our accuracy improved from whatever level it's currently at. That's total nonsense. It's completely backwards, the fact that there is possibility for error is WHY we have to keep improving. Voting zero is antithetical to the improvement motivation......

Still concerned about the number of people that think a 5 to 10% error level is acceptable though. no comments, are we just stuck on 0 vs anything other than zero???

(one post noted the death penalty, interesting, but this thread was about incarceration, so that shift in focus isn't applicable and is not a thread about accuracy but, rather, the need to even have a penalty at all - it is certainly not analogous to a discussion on incarceration)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Someone should forward this thread to Mike Nifong.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

lots of people voting 0 - I wonder what imaginary land they live in.

While 0 may not be possible, it should certainly be the goal. The alternative is to say that some number besides 0 is acceptable and requires no further improvement.

Blues,
Dave

We accept many things while still continuing to improve upon them.

Example: Skydiving equipment was and is accepted and yet manufactures still are attempting to make improvements.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch