kiddie killers

[oilman]

Let's hypothesise then.

One of your relatives, who you had gone to see that day, was found dead sometime later. You were the last person seen leaving the building. You are (wrongly as it happens) the main suspect. You are wrongly convicted. You receive the death sentence.

Do you still favour the death penalty? (a simple yes or no).

You typically try to mislead people by saying it's a simple yes or no answer when it isnt and you know it, it's far more complicated than that if it goes to court, you should be in the tory party along with all the other twisters of the fact for being so misleading instead of saying it how it is.

My question was in answer to trazor's post. It only needs a yes or no as grrinc managed to do.

You just have an axe to grind, and seem to just like having a slap at me. I don't understand your repeated references to the tory party. Particularly, I can't make sense of the rant highlighted in bold.

 

[oilman]

If the death penalty was available, there might be quite a few innocent people executed having been convicted on "shaken baby syndrome" evidence. This syndrome is only a theory, as no one has done any experiments to prove the theory. There are plenty of people in prison as a result though. This is the danger with the "justice" system.


In part is may be for "justice", is also useful as an instrument of fear to keep people in order. As long as they're scared, they generally behave. You can see the problem at present with teenagers, who have no fear, and commit crime after crime, including murder.

 

[billyo]

wots up soft touch got somethink to hide from way back in your past.

 

[vinty]

If less homicides are being commited then there should be less chance of wrongful convictions,

 

[Softus]

If less homicides are being commited then there should be less chance of wrongful convictions,

Er, no.

The number of events in the 'conviction' sample set doesn't change the probability of any one of those being wrongful.

 

[Trazor]

If less homicides are being commited then there should be less chance of wrongful convictions,

Er, no.

The number of events in the 'conviction' sample set doesn't change the probability of any one of those being wrongful.

Er, yes.

1 murder...1 arrest...little chance of wrongful conviction.

1000 murders...1000 arrests...high chance of wrongful conviction.

 

[Softus]

1 murder...1 arrest...little chance of wrongful conviction.

1000 murders...1000 arrests...high chance of wrongful conviction.

I was considering only feasible scenarios.

 

[Trazor]

1 murder...1 arrest...little chance of wrongful conviction.

1000 murders...1000 arrests...high chance of wrongful conviction.

I was considering only feasible scenarios.

Don,t be picky, you can see the reasoning.

 

[oilman]

1 murder...1 arrest...little chance of wrongful conviction.

1000 murders...1000 arrests...high chance of wrongful conviction.

I was considering only feasible scenarios.

Don,t be picky, you can see the reasoning.

The reasoning is unsound. You seem to be statistically challenged. there is a chance of wrongful conviction for the one murder situation. There is a significant probability that there will be a wrongful conviction in 1000 murders, but the probability that a wrongful conviction for any one of those murders does not necessarily differ form the probability in the one murder situation.

Being picky is essential to prevent being saddled with bad policies and decisions based on bad science.

 

[vinty]

please explain how the reasoning is unsound, if no murders are committed what are the chances of a wrongful conviction for murder?every murder carries the chance of wrongful conviction equally, but are you saying that in town that has 10 murders in 1 year you are going to have the same number of wrongful convictions that could happen in a city that has 1,000 murders in 1 year, how can this be if every murder carries the chance of wrongful conviction equally. Some once said there are three types lies 'lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[JohnD]

please explain how the reasoning is unsound, if no murders are committed what are the chances of a wrongful conviction for murder?

If no murders were committed, I suppoose all the people executed would be innocent, including, for example, mothers whose babies suffered cot death and were found guilty of killing them.

 

[vinty]

please explain how the reasoning is unsound, if no murders are committed what are the chances of a wrongful conviction for murder?

If no murders were committed, I suppoose all the people executed would be innocent, including, for example, mothers whose babies suffered cot death and were found guilty of killing them.

If no murders were committed then no-one would be wrongfully convicted so therefore no-one would be executed. if less murders are being committed , then the police will charge less people with murder so the chances of an innocent person being charged and convicted should be less, all things being equal.

 

[oilman]

please explain how the reasoning is unsound, if no murders are committed what are the chances of a wrongful conviction for murder?every murder carries the chance of wrongful conviction equally,

But earlier you said:

If less homicides are being commited then there should be less chance of wrongful convictions,

You appear to have changed to broadly agree with me and softus on the probability

 

[tim west]

It's not rocket science for god's sake!

 

[Softus]

please explain how the reasoning is unsound, if no murders are committed what are the chances of a wrongful conviction for murder?every murder carries the chance of wrongful conviction equally

vinty, to understand why people (including me BTW) consider your reasoning to be flawed, you need to be clear about what probability (aka chance) means.

A simple example, albeit about something that's random, is coin tossing.

If you toss a coin a number of times, you'd expect to see heads come up in about half of those tosses, give or take a few. Most people would view the chance of heads appearing as being 1/2.

If you toss the coin 1000 times, then you'd see heads roughly 500 times. Still a chance of 1/2.

So while the number of events, and number of outcomes, changes, the probability stays the same.

Given a selection of different murder rates, e.g. 100 per year, 1,000 per year, 10,000 per year, etc., the number of wrongful convictions would, of course, change accordingly.

However, if no other factor were involved (for example juries and judges stressed from overwork, or the quality of police evidence varying) then the chance of any given conviction being wrongful would stay the same, no matter how many murders occurred.

but are you saying that in town that has 10 murders in 1 year you are going to have the same number of wrongful convictions that could happen in a city that has 1,000 murders in 1 year, how can this be if every murder carries the chance of wrongful conviction equally.

Please read your sentence again in the light of my explanation above.

Nobody has said that the number will be the same, but the probability will. Probably.