The "risky shift"
Charles Novins
"Madness is rare among individuals, but nations can behave like raving
lunatics." -- Peter Bennesh, IBD
Of all the worthless, mind-numbing things I studied in college, a small few
that weren't actually came from psychology. One was called the "risky
shift" and was convincingly demonstrated in farly tight experimentation.
The phenomenon has given me insight into a number of things;.
To explain the theory, I'll apply it to juries, where I believe it explains
almost everything. One of my arguments, as a defense attorney in a criminal
case, is that when a jury errs and convicts someone of a crime they didn't
do, it's almost like a crime in itself.
This is an argument I make quite honestly. If you do not know - beyond a
reasonable doubt - that my client's guilty, then a guilty verdict may have
the effect of destroying a good man.
And my argument to the jury is: If so, do YOU want that on your conscience?
The argument often fails. I believe one reason why is the fact that the
jury deliberates as a group. The responsibility for an error is distributed
among 12 people, and each one views any mistake as being one that is not
their responsibility, at least not in substantial part.
Yes, juries know, and I tell them, that all 12 must agree to convict. That
means each of them contributes 100% to the verdict, or the "error," in a
very real sense.
The "risky shift" theory suggests that people in groups will engage in much
more reckless behavior than they would by themselves, because they all take
credit when decisions are "correct," yet each assumes only a fraction of the
blame if it's not.
So from the defense-attorney point of view, would I want a single juror?
No. The ideal, from my perspective and in terms of defeating the "risky
shift" would be to have 12 jurors, but have them unable to interact.
The ostensible reason for jurors to discuss a case is so that each can
benefit from details the others might have missed. But this is somewhat
weak since any good attorney will highlight relevant aspects on opening and
summation.
If each juror had to decide the case in isolation, each would understand
that the outcome, and especially an unjust outcome, would be his/her
responsibility alone. That last is the truth, morally speaking.
But "risky shift," in my view, explains a lot, from juries who convict on
flimsy evidence, to nations that exterminate their sub-populations. I
regard it as an enormously useful theory to explain the madness of crowds to
individualists.
John Shafto
news:5_ft8.101236$l7.76...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> But "risky shift," in my view, explains a lot, from juries who convict on
> flimsy evidence, to nations that exterminate their sub-populations. I
> regard it as an enormously useful theory to explain the madness of crowds to
> individualists.
Thank you for mentioning this. It's almost common sense, but
one might not think of it (I haven't), so it was interesting to read.
blazingmuse
you do for elections. That way they can still benefit from discussion
but make an independant decision.
Problem: The chances of getting all 12 jurors to agree under these
double-blind circumstances is miniscule, as you have demolished peer
pressure, which presumably conglomerates their choices normally.
Blame diffusion is not influential, also, as they are still not
individually accountable here.
Solution: Make the guilty/innocent call open to the
defense/prosecution and judge under strictest confidence, and repeat
as neccesary, though since stubborn jurors can't be hauled into the
dock for interrogation without defeating the purpose of the system, a
better idea might be to abandon the idea of unanimity of verdict, and
keep majority rule. Have 13 lucky jurors. Or maybe some twisted
application of the rules regarding jury composition could be brought
in instead: They've had scientists rejected as candidates because
they knew something about DNA analysis, you could probably eject a
Harlemite juror from the trial of a Black as well. Maybe I'm just
cynical.
As an aside, I would wonder from the perspective of social utility if
it IS less just to let one innocent man be bound than have ten guilty
men walk free; The release of the dangerous individual typically does
more damage than the restraint of the benign. Easier to destroy than
to construct, etc. Not that I support conviction on whimsy/suspicion.
Resijinth
11413.7...@posting.google.com>...
> I would have though juries should have a private ballot mechanism as
> you do for elections. That way they can still benefit from discussion
> but make an independant decision.
> Problem: The chances of getting all 12 jurors to agree under these
> double-blind circumstances is miniscule, as you have demolished peer
> pressure, which presumably conglomerates their choices normally.
> Blame diffusion is not influential, also, as they are still not
> individually accountable here.
> Solution: Make the guilty/innocent call open to the
> defense/prosecution and judge under strictest confidence, and repeat
> as neccesary, though since stubborn jurors can't be hauled into the
> dock for interrogation without defeating the purpose of the system, a
> better idea might be to abandon the idea of unanimity of verdict, and
> keep majority rule. Have 13 lucky jurors. Or maybe some twisted
> application of the rules regarding jury composition could be brought
> in instead: They've had scientists rejected as candidates because
> they knew something about DNA analysis, you could probably eject a
> Harlemite juror from the trial of a Black as well. Maybe I'm just
> cynical.
I don't understand any of this. Perhaps you could be more clear?
> As an aside, I would wonder from the perspective of social utility if
> it IS less just to let one innocent man be bound than have ten guilty
> men walk free;
Social utility? You're treading the path of irrational right-wing and
left-wing philosophies here.
> The release of the dangerous individual typically does
> more damage than the restraint of the benign.
The restraint of the benign will cause more harm, because more
productive individuals will be more interested in keeping a low
profile than actually getting out there and creating something. Also,
when you convict the wrong person, the real criminal is free. But in
the case of releasing the guilty, usually the police don't pursue
somebody else. So it's a case of whether an innocent person was put in
prison or not, not whether or not a guilty person was let go.
> Easier to destroy than
> to construct, etc.
So you're against Ayn Rand's productivity-based ethics? Rather, you
support destruction over creation? Typical. You're like FDR.
Overproduction makes the economy poor. War makes the economy wealthy.
Obnoxious nonsense like that.
> Not that I support conviction on whimsy/suspicion.
ANY conviction is based on whimsy/suspicion when you don't make
indesputable proof the main factor in a case.
Larry Tate
"Charles Novins" <taxs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:5_ft8.101236$l7.76...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> This is an argument I make quite honestly. If you do not know - beyond a
> reasonable doubt - that my client's guilty, then a guilty verdict may have
> the effect of destroying a good man.
The problem with that argument is that even if you think you know that
someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you still might be destroying a
good man. First, he could be a good man despite his crime. Second, he could
be innocent, despite evidence that nearly everyone would find conclusive
that suggests that he is guilty. See, e.g, Reba McEntire, "The Night the
Lights Went Out in Georgia," For My Broken Heart Track 6, MCA Records:
Universal City, Cal. (1991)
> And my argument to the jury is: If so, do YOU want that on your
conscience?
That actually wouldn't work on me. If I honestly and reasonably thought that
someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he turned out to be
innocent, I would not feel guilty for convicting him, and I don't think
anyone else should. While tragic, such situations are bound to happen, and
feeling guilt over doing something that was not immoral is irrational
> The ideal, from my perspective and in terms of defeating the "risky
> shift" would be to have 12 jurors, but have them unable to interact.
>
> The ostensible reason for jurors to discuss a case is so that each can
> benefit from details the others might have missed. But this is somewhat
> weak since any good attorney will highlight relevant aspects on opening
and
> summation.
>
> If each juror had to decide the case in isolation, each would understand
> that the outcome, and especially an unjust outcome, would be his/her
> responsibility alone. That last is the truth, morally speaking.
>
> But "risky shift," in my view, explains a lot, from juries who convict on
> flimsy evidence, to nations that exterminate their sub-populations. I
> regard it as an enormously useful theory to explain the madness of crowds
to
> individualists.
Such a system would certainly reduce the number of innocent people wrongly
convicted, but it would also increase the number of the guilty wrong
acquitted. Many of those people will then kill, rape, rob, etc., more
innocent people. From my standpoint, if the criminal justice system if
anything right now leans too far in the direction of the accused and does
not do a sufficient job protecting the public. Your proposal would bring it
even farther out of whack.
Charles Novins
news:a97n6h$d71$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> The problem with that argument is that even if you think you know that
someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you still might be destroying a
thought that someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he turned out
to be innocent, I would not feel guilty for convicting him, and I don't
think anyone else should.
CHARLES NOVINS:
And nor would I; You are failing completely to understand my argument. I am
not concerned at all with a situation where a defendant is proved guilty
beyond [reasonable] doubt but is nevertheless guilty. I am urging the
jurors not to find someone guilty when they are NOT convinced beyond doubt.
This happens all the time. When the anti-death-penalty folks celebrated the
100th person released from death row
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/02/04/16061247.shtml?Element_ID=160
61247
because they were innocent BEYOND DOUBT (because of DNA, and these 100 are
obviously the iceberg's tip), you might ask yourself: What happened?
Were these hundred victims of those rare situations (that you correctly
describe) where the evidence is simply overwhelming but the person remains
innocent? Of course not. Every single one of these cases can be reviewed
in a brief reading, and every one - with an occasional rare exception - will
be seen in hindsight as a case where it was OBVIOUS the evidence didn't even
approach proof BRD (beyond reasonable doubt).
Is it because these cases get insufficient attention? That argument would
be be plain stupid - death penalty cases receive more attention and
resources than any other type of case, both in terms of money and tangible
resources as well as the importance that participants attach.
In fact, the opposite is true. Your view of the criminal justice system is
informed by your inexperience. You look at it from a legalistic, abstract
viewpoint. What could be more favorable to a defendant than to require
proof beyond doubt by the prosecution? We must be releasing bad guys left
and right, eh?
LARRY TATE:
]Eliminating the risky shift] would certainly reduce the number of innocent
people wrongly convicted, but it would also increase the number of the
guilty wrong acquitted. Many of those people will then kill, rape, rob,
etc., more innocent people. From my standpoint, if the criminal justice
system if anything right now leans too far in the direction of the accused
and does not do a sufficient job protecting the public. Your proposal would
bring it even farther out of whack.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You have no clue. When there is an allegation - and nothing more - that a
child has been molested, or a parent stabbed, or a person's life savings
stolen, you will see that the mere allegation will be almost dispositive.
Essentially, the more serious the charge levelled - completely apart from
truth or proof - the more likely it is there will be no viable defense. The
true fact of American justice is that the defense MUST prove INNOCENCE BRD,
not the other way around.
There is the old saying that "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged,
and a liberal is a conservative who got indicted." The latter part,
however, is far more true; honest citizens are often astounded by the
virulity and unreasoning of the criminal justice system once it turns on
them, but more than anything they're surprised at how the system is utterly
stacked against them.
So all I ever ask of a juror is that they apply the standard of proof
required by the law. Guess what? They rarely do. You completely
misconstrue my argument; I never ask for more.
Warning to everyone reading this: the standard used by jurors is exactly
what you'd guess: "Does he appear gulity, do I feel negative toward's him?"
This is the sort of thing where Harvard Law would actually put someone at a
disadvantage...at least in the beginning.
blazingmuse
thread.)
> > I would have though juries should have a private ballot mechanism as
> > you do for elections. That way they can still benefit from discussion
> > but make an independant decision.
The proposed solution to the blame diffusion problem (risky shift) is
that each juror make his/her decision in isolation, forgoing the
benefits of consultation but removing the sense of group solidarity
that let's us apes live dangerously (irrationally,) when they must
vote unaimously and subject to their fellow's scrutiny. i pointed out
you could get the best of both worlds with the above. But there's
still a flaw:
> > Problem: The chances of getting all 12 jurors to agree under these
> > double-blind circumstances is miniscule, as you have demolished
> > peer pressure, which presumably conglomerates their choices
> > normally. Blame diffusion is not influential, also, as they are still not
> > individually accountable here.
If you have private ballot, no-one can determine precisely who voted
what way, except in the case of a spontaneous unanimous verdict. So
the problem raised, that acting in numbers abolishes guilt and removes
the restraints of public criticism, still exists.
> > Solution: Make the guilty/innocent call open to the
> > defense/prosecution and judge under strictest confidence, and repeat
> > as neccesary, though since stubborn jurors can't be hauled into the
> > dock for interrogation without defeating the purpose of the system, a
> > better idea might be to abandon the idea of unanimity of verdict, and
> > keep majority rule. Have 13 lucky jurors.
So have the knowledge of who voted how, recorded for the benefit of
impartiality, so that in the case of a vote that isn't unanimous (well
you can hardly overturn a vote that is or else you might as well
abandon juries altogether since you had the verdict predetermined) you
can select certain jurors and question their motives. Of course,
jurors are supposed to be free from this kind of pressuring and have
no involvement in the case except to render a final judgement, so
you're largely impotent to affect their decisions anyway. So, just go
with majority rule on the vote instead 9guilty/innocent,) and have an
odd number of jurors to avoid a tie.
Or maybe some twisted
> > application of the rules regarding jury composition could be brought
> > in instead: They've had scientists rejected as candidates because
> > they knew something about DNA analysis, you could probably eject a
> > Harlemite juror from the trial of a Black as well. Maybe I'm just
> > cynical.
Alternatively, having identified a stubborn juror who won't go with
the pack because of some ingrained bias or vendetta, whatever, you
could eject him/her on the basis of a suitable pretext. Worse things
already happen.
> I don't understand any of this. Perhaps you could be more clear?
>
> > As an aside, I would wonder from the perspective of social utility if
> > it IS less just to let one innocent man be bound than have ten guilty
> > men walk free;
> Social utility? You're treading the path of irrational right-wing and
> left-wing philosophies here.
I didn't understand any of that. Could you be more clear?
> > The release of the dangerous individual typically does
> > more damage than the restraint of the benign.
>
> The restraint of the benign will cause more harm, because more
> productive individuals will be more interested in keeping a low
> profile than actually getting out there and creating something.
I'm sorry, how does creating things make them more vulnerable to
criminal prosecution? It is criminals that create crimes.
> > Easier to destroy than
> > to construct, etc.
>
> So you're against Ayn Rand's productivity-based ethics? Rather, you
> support destruction over creation? Typical. You're like FDR.
> Overproduction makes the economy poor. War makes the economy
> wealthy. Obnoxious nonsense like that.
It's not nonsense, it's thermodynamics. It IS easier to destroy than
to create, and that's a fact. I didn't say that's a good thing. My
point was that equal amounts of effort expended on creation and
destruction will have greater effect if expended on destruction.
Presumably dangerous individuals, all things else being equal, destroy
things, while benign ones create. Therefore if you have two
individuals of equal esources and talent, one engaged in creation and
the other in destruction, you will get a net destructive effect. This
is why I'm saying it may not neccesarily be a good idea to let 10
guilty men go free, as they can easily undo all the good work of the
innocent solo, plus some.
> > Not that I support conviction on whimsy/suspicion.
>
> ANY conviction is based on whimsy/suspicion when you don't make
> indesputable proof the main factor in a case.
Indisputable proof does not exist, and you should know that.
Reasonable doubt can be stretched, and frequently is. This, in fact,
was part of the problem addressed.
Many more things are true than can be proven, many more men are guilty
than can be convicted, where innocence is presumed. Absolute proof,
therefore, is excessive as a requirement.
Sorry if this was a little verbose, but apparently you appreciate
clarification.
Resijinth
> convicted, but it would also increase the number of the guilty wrong
> acquitted. Many of those people will then kill, rape, rob, etc., more
> innocent people.
Not if we protected the 2nd amendment. Everybody should be encouraged
to carry guns with them at all times. The government shouldn't harm
innocents just to get at the guilty. On the other hand, it should not
act as a cushion for individual irresponsibility. It is meant as a
suppliment to individual self defense, not as a replacement for it.
> From my standpoint, if the criminal justice system if
> anything right now leans too far in the direction of the accused and does
> not do a sufficient job protecting the public. Your proposal would bring it
> even farther out of whack.
The system's job is NOT to protect the public. It is to protect every
individual's rights. Consider the situation of having a police man for
every household, not only extorting the individual for tax money in
excess of necessity, but by giving priveleges to the police and
allowing them to do wrong without taking responsibility for them. This
is protecting the public, there can be no doubt. But, more
importantly, is this protecting every individual's rights? Obviously
it isn't. There is no such thing as the public, except that which is
defined as the total sum of the individuals. Therefore, the correct
way to protect the public is to protect individual rights to the
fullest extent, NOT to protect the public and ignore individual
rights, for that is a contradiction which will lead to the destruction
of both individual rights and, therefore, the public itself.
Bob Kolker
blazingmuse wrote:
>
> > wealthy. Obnoxious nonsense like that.
>
> It's not nonsense, it's thermodynamics. It IS easier to destroy than
> to create, and that's a fact.
Not quite. A disordered state is more probable than an ordered state.
Alternatively, there are more states which are disorderly than there are
orderly states. Think of a deck of cards initially in standard order,
then shuffled. Go from the standard order to some random order is
virtually inevitable, but shuffling from a random order to standard
order is virtually impossible (i.e. so highly improbable that one would
not believe it to be possible).
Entropy rules in the long run.
Bob Kolker
Resijinth
> Annotated 'muse: (I'm assuming you read through the first post on
> thread.)
>
> > > I would have though juries should have a private ballot mechanism as
> > > you do for elections. That way they can still benefit from discussion
> > > but make an independant decision.
>
> The proposed solution to the blame diffusion problem (risky shift) is
> that each juror make his/her decision in isolation, forgoing the
> benefits of consultation but removing the sense of group solidarity
> that let's us apes live dangerously (irrationally,) when they must
> vote unaimously and subject to their fellow's scrutiny. i pointed out
> you could get the best of both worlds with the above. But there's
> still a flaw:
>
Yeah. It's like "Hey, it wasn't my fault." or "Phew, at least nobody
knows it's me". Of course, what would be worse is when they go with
what they THINK is the majority rule.
> > > Problem: The chances of getting all 12 jurors to agree under these
> > > double-blind circumstances is miniscule, as you have demolished
> > > peer pressure, which presumably conglomerates their choices
> > > normally. Blame diffusion is not influential, also, as they are stil
> > > l not
> > > individually accountable here.
>
> If you have private ballot, no-one can determine precisely who voted
> what way, except in the case of a spontaneous unanimous verdict. So
> the problem raised, that acting in numbers abolishes guilt and removes
> the restraints of public criticism, still exists.
>
They'll still either all get the blame anyways, or no matter what they
won't be blamed. There are few cases which are unlike the two
situations I just described. At any rate, the public shouldn't be a
factor.
> > > Solution: Make the guilty/innocent call open to the
> > > defense/prosecution and judge under strictest confidence, and repeat
> > > as neccesary, though since stubborn jurors can't be hauled into the
> > > dock for interrogation without defeating the purpose of the system, a
> > > better idea might be to abandon the idea of unanimity of verdict, and
> > > keep majority rule. Have 13 lucky jurors.
>
> So have the knowledge of who voted how, recorded for the benefit of
> impartiality, so that in the case of a vote that isn't unanimous (well
> you can hardly overturn a vote that is or else you might as well
> abandon juries altogether since you had the verdict predetermined) you
> can select certain jurors and question their motives. Of course,
> jurors are supposed to be free from this kind of pressuring and have
> no involvement in the case except to render a final judgement, so
> you're largely impotent to affect their decisions anyway. So, just go
> with majority rule on the vote instead 9guilty/innocent,) and have an
> odd number of jurors to avoid a tie.
>
A two thirds verdict would make more sense in that case. I mean,
still, what I think is wrong with juries is not how many of them it
takes to make a verdict, but it's along the lines of saying '50
million frenchmen can't be wrong'. Ultimately, I think there should be
some people trained to analyze situations. We need juries to be chosen
on the basis of their compitence, not on their beleifs. It's so easy
to choose people who are only on your side. I think each side in the
case (prosecution and defense) should have to choose a pool of 60
people, and then choose 6 out of the pool the other side has chosen.
Vice versa implied, of course.
> Or maybe some twisted
> > > application of the rules regarding jury composition could be brought
> > > in instead: They've had scientists rejected as candidates because
> > > they knew something about DNA analysis, you could probably eject a
> > > Harlemite juror from the trial of a Black as well. Maybe I'm just
> > > cynical.
>
> Alternatively, having identified a stubborn juror who won't go with
> the pack because of some ingrained bias or vendetta, whatever, you
> could eject him/her on the basis of a suitable pretext. Worse things
> already happen.
>
It's better than an opinionated jurur be ejected than accepted.
> > I don't understand any of this. Perhaps you could be more clear?
> >
> > > As an aside, I would wonder from the perspective of social utility if
> > > it IS less just to let one innocent man be bound than have ten guilty
> > > men walk free;
> > Social utility? You're treading the path of irrational right-wing and
> > left-wing philosophies here.
>
> I didn't understand any of that. Could you be more clear?
>
Anybody who puts the social utility above the rights of individuals is
treading a beaten path. And as that one guy always says: "Beaten paths
are for beaten men". Of course, men meaning both males AND females.
> > > The release of the dangerous individual typically does
> > > more damage than the restraint of the benign.
> >
> > The restraint of the benign will cause more harm, because more
> > productive individuals will be more interested in keeping a low
> > profile than actually getting out there and creating something.
>
> I'm sorry, how does creating things make them more vulnerable to
> criminal prosecution? It is criminals that create crimes.
>
Think about all those people who would be willing to become something
and make something of themselves if they weren't worried about people
who might blame their problems on them.
> > > Easier to destroy than
> > > to construct, etc.
> >
> > So you're against Ayn Rand's productivity-based ethics? Rather, you
> > support destruction over creation? Typical. You're like FDR.
> > Overproduction makes the economy poor. War makes the economy
> > wealthy. Obnoxious nonsense like that.
>
> It's not nonsense, it's thermodynamics. It IS easier to destroy than
> to create, and that's a fact. I didn't say that's a good thing. My
> point was that equal amounts of effort expended on creation and
> destruction will have greater effect if expended on destruction.
> Presumably dangerous individuals, all things else being equal, destroy
> things, while benign ones create. Therefore if you have two
> individuals of equal esources and talent, one engaged in creation and
> the other in destruction, you will get a net destructive effect. This
> is why I'm saying it may not neccesarily be a good idea to let 10
> guilty men go free, as they can easily undo all the good work of the
> innocent solo, plus some.
>
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with it. Besides, what about
catalysts, or more importantly, gravity? If we allow creative people
to gravitate towards eachother then they will offset any of the
destructiveness of people. Also, there is a point at which no matter
what is done, the rate at which the proportion of innocent people
convicted increases is greater than the rate at which the proportion
of guilty people are convicted increases. The same can be said of the
rate at which they decrease. There is an optimum. And this optimum can
be found ONLY in making courts more objective, NOT in changing the
level of unanimity needed or refocusing the burden of proof nor or in
altering the punishments and their extent, and in the ability to
change them. Rather, we need to change the ways in which we come to
our conclusions.
Perhaps by interpreting 'counsel' as soley limited to attourneys, and
providing free, tax exempt, or a mixture thereof for the funding, and
eliminating all such things for 'lawyers', really charismatic
debators, will make courts more objective. Furthermore, with such a
definition of counsel, then even by providing one like Osama Bin Laden
with 'counsel' will still lead to his just conviction.
> > > Not that I support conviction on whimsy/suspicion.
> >
> > ANY conviction is based on whimsy/suspicion when you don't make
> > indesputable proof the main factor in a case.
>
> Indisputable proof does not exist, and you should know that.
> Reasonable doubt can be stretched, and frequently is. This, in fact,
> was part of the problem addressed.
> Many more things are true than can be proven, many more men are guilty
> than can be convicted, where innocence is presumed. Absolute proof,
> therefore, is excessive as a requirement.
> Sorry if this was a little verbose, but apparently you appreciate
> clarification.
Okay. It is a bit excessive. Perhaps what we need is a better
definition of proof. A basis of proof based on individual justice and
objective facts will ultimately lead to a greater number of guilty
being convicted and a greater number of innocent being acquitted. That
is certain.
At any rate, we need to promote people's decisions to do things for
the good of their own self defense. Returning to a completely
constitutional America is the only way to solve our problems.
blazingmuse
> knows it's me". Of course, what would be worse is when they go with
> what they THINK is the majority rule.
As long the choice is made privately, that shouldn't be happen. Their
private conscience, for want of a better word, will rule.
> They'll still either all get the blame anyways, or no matter what they
> won't be blamed. There are few cases which are unlike the two
> situations I just described. At any rate, the public shouldn't be a
> factor.
Well in that case risky shift has no influence and the entire debate
here is moot.
> A two thirds verdict would make more sense in that case. I mean,
> still, what I think is wrong with juries is not how many of them it
> takes to make a verdict, but it's along the lines of saying '50
> million frenchmen can't be wrong'. Ultimately, I think there should be
> some people trained to analyze situations. We need juries to be chosen
> on the basis of their compitence, not on their beleifs. It's so easy
> to choose people who are only on your side. I think each side in the
> case (prosecution and defense) should have to choose a pool of 60
> people, and then choose 6 out of the pool the other side has chosen.
> Vice versa implied, of course.
that seems sensible enough, but a 2/3 majority doesn't remove the
problem that a single stubborn juror can hold up the process
indefinitely. I dunno, maybe your slected scrutineers will be
magnanimous enough to defer to the greater good. \:>)
> > > > As an aside, I would wonder from the perspective of social utility if
> > > > it IS less just to let one innocent man be bound than have ten guilty
> > > > men walk free;
> > > Social utility? You're treading the path of irrational right-wing and
> > > left-wing philosophies here.
> >
> > I didn't understand any of that. Could you be more clear?
> >
>
> Anybody who puts the social utility above the rights of individuals is
> treading a beaten path. And as that one guy always says: "Beaten paths
> are for beaten men". Of course, men meaning both males AND
> females.
Assuming that rights exist, and must not be voluntarily violated (for
it is absurd to say they are inviolable when the laws of physics may
do,) the question arises whether it is just to choose a 84% chance of
two humans' rights being violated over a 100% chance of a single
person's. Admittedly there is no such thing as 1.68 people, but even
if doubt gives absolution from guilt this is the problem with the
statistical certainty of releasing criminals- although you will
definitely violate the rights of the innocent imprisoned, the
alternative is the less individually specifically certain, but more
widespread, violation of rights that comes from releasing the many
guilty. And this may be the greater evil. So, social utility and
ethics may mix.
> > > > The release of the dangerous individual typically does
> > > > more damage than the restraint of the benign.
> > >
> > > The restraint of the benign will cause more harm, because more
> > > productive individuals will be more interested in keeping a low
> > > profile than actually getting out there and creating something.
> >
> > I'm sorry, how does creating things make them more vulnerable to
> > criminal prosecution? It is criminals that create crimes.
> >
>
> Think about all those people who would be willing to become
> something and make something of themselves if they weren't worried
> about people who might blame their problems on them.
You're saying the majority of innocents hauled into the dock for
prosecution are the victims of malicious slander by their envious
underlings in an attempt to frame them. Ahem. I'm sure the
statistics support this, granted that said innocents imprisoned have
all been, well, found guilty.
I'm hardly deterred from pursuing success by this fear for one,
granted that once I accumulate sufficient wealth the finest Sophists
in all the land will be at my disposal. }:>] But then I shall have
every temptation to BE guilty...
> > It's not nonsense, it's thermodynamics. It IS easier to destroy than
> > to create, and that's a fact. I didn't say that's a good thing. My
> > point was that equal amounts of effort expended on creation and
> > destruction will have greater effect if expended on destruction.
> > Presumably dangerous individuals, all things else being equal,
> > destroy things, while benign ones create. Therefore if you have two
> > individuals of equal esources and talent, one engaged in creation and
> > the other in destruction, you will get a net destructive effect. This is
> > why I'm saying it may not neccesarily be a good idea to let 10 guilty
> > men go free, as they can easily undo all the good work of the innocent
> > solo, plus some.
> >
>
> Thermodynamics has nothing to do with it. Besides, what about
> catalysts, or more importantly, gravity? If we allow creative people
> to gravitate towards eachother then they will offset any of the
> destructiveness of people.
I am *really* stretching my imaginative capacity here, but apparently
you are saying that if the competent and honest-minded form exclusive
interest-driven cabals, they shall fend off the trenchant forays of
the weak-minded and atavistic. I'm sorry, but that sounds remarkably
like they've lost all faith in civilised society. That way anarchism
lies, I can't back this.
> Also, there is a point at which no matter what is done, the rate at which
> the proportion of innocent people convicted increases is greater than
> the rate at which the proportion of guilty people are convicted increases.
> The same can be said of the rate at which they decrease. There is an
> optimum...
Doubtless, as in any society there are neccesarily more innocent than
guilty individuals or creative progress would be impossible and the
society would disintegrate (loose application of thermodynamics
again,) so if you lower the bar of supicion low enough you will
obviously convict more innocent than guilty, quite apart from the
spiraling costs that go into the process of conviction itself. I was
merely refuting the assertion that it is neccesarily better to release
ten convicts than imprison a man or woman of conscience blanche,
assuming the difference can be told.
<snippage regarding objectivity, not my area of speciality>
The legal system mainly tackles the symptoms, not the disease, so the
resources might better be spent on welfare, education and economic
measures, if these can only be made effectively beneficial. But
please, by all means stand on you soapbox and harangue the multitudes.
):>)
Apostate
Blazingmuse: if you are still in any measure interested in the
ng soc.atheism, would you oblige by contacting me at the e-mail addy
used for this posting? Thanks.
/Apostate