Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 68 of 68

Thread: Off topic.

  1. #51
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    Drink driving should only involve two factors.

    1. Was the person driving? Yes
    2. Was that person over the limit when doing so? Yes.

    Everything else should matter not and yet every day drivers who commit the above get off with various technicalities. It's barmy.
    I agree

    however just because hoops have to be jumped through does not mean by default succesfull convictions are definitely correct. What you refer to are procedural things that if they go wrong can wreck a case and that would frustrate me too. However what we are talking about here are the subjective JUDGEMENTS made regarding guilt / not guilty.

    You referred to a few miscarriages of justice earlier. There are only a few because that is what has been proven, ie it is difficult to overturn such things. There will be many more people convicted of things that they havent done, than there are examples of such convictions being over turned. We can convince ourselves that our system has a high accuracy, but ultimatley people arent that accurate in making decisions.

  2. #52
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    Any ambiguities are cleared up and many terms put into laymans terms and clear English.
    You are missing the point in spectacular fashion, in particular with reference to decisions made that require a technical understanding of something.

  3. #53
    really is sorry Reacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wigan
    Age
    48
    Posts
    11,967
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    You are missing the point in spectacular fashion, in particular with reference to decisions made that require a technical understanding of something.
    No I am not. It is not for the 12 jurors to have the technical knowledge. It is for the expert witnesses to provide the evidence and for the judge to allow that evidence as admissible.

    The prosecution then refer to that evidence and sum it up in a language that the ordinary man/woman in the street can understand.

    When someone says "the chances of someone other than the defendant having that DNA found at the scene is x amount to one for example then it's pretty clear what is meant.

    Just as an aside how many times have you been in Court or given evidence?

  4. #54
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    No I am not. It is not for the 12 jurors to have the technical knowledge. It is for the expert witnesses to provide the evidence and for the judge to allow that evidence as admissible.

    The prosecution then refer to that evidence and sum it up in a language that the ordinary man/woman in the street can understand.

    When someone says "the chances of someone other than the defendant having that DNA found at the scene is x amount to one for example then it's pretty clear what is meant.
    Correct, and yet it is this that has been wrong. The interpretation of probabilities and this is confusing to a lay person.

    I have provided you with a good resource to understand that aspect of it more, you can choose to look into it if you wish. The lady who was convicted of killing 2 of her kids when both died from cot death was convicted on the basis that the probability of 2 separate children from the same familiy dying from cot death is (for example) 1 billion to one. This was confused with there is a 1 billion to 1 chance of her being innocent.

    They are not the same thing.


    The second thing that you conveniently ignore is that you can wrap anything up, simplify it, explain it, put it into laymens terms however the following is a fact. 12 people have to make a decision based on their PERCEPTION. A decision that is based on information that they have received but then cognitively distorted, ammended, had influenced by any preconceived biases, influenced by other people or stronger members of the jury, influenced heavily by ONE PERSON such as an expert witness as per my example above. Human decision making is flawed, it isnt even a matter of opion it is a hugely known fact.

  5. #55
    really is sorry Reacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wigan
    Age
    48
    Posts
    11,967
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    Correct, and yet it is this that has been wrong. The interpretation of probabilities and this is confusing to a lay person.

    I have provided you with a good resource to understand that aspect of it more, you can choose to look into it if you wish. The lady who was convicted of killing 2 of her kids when both died from cot death was convicted on the basis that the probability of 2 separate children from the same familiy dying from cot death is (for example) 1 billion to one. This was confused with there is a 1 billion to 1 chance of her being innocent.

    They are not the same thing.


    The second thing that you conveniently ignore is that you can wrap anything up, simplify it, explain it, put it into laymens terms however the following is a fact. 12 people have to make a decision based on their PERCEPTION. A decision that is based on information that they have received but then cognitively distorted, ammended, had influenced by any preconceived biases, influenced by other people or stronger members of the jury, influenced heavily by ONE PERSON such as an expert witness as per my example above. Human decision making is flawed, it isnt even a matter of opion it is a hugely known fact.
    So what's your answer then? Seemingly you would convict no one based on the assertion that there is a chance they may be innocent

  6. #56
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    So what's your answer then? Seemingly you would convict no one based on the assertion that there is a chance they may be innocent
    Please accept my thanks for demonstrating the precise cognitative distortions that I have been talking about. See how easy it was for you to percieve something that simply hasnt happened or been said

  7. #57
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,677
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    Please accept my thanks for demonstrating the precise cognitative distortions that I have been talking about. See how easy it was for you to percieve something that simply hasnt happened or been said
    I've been following this debate and I'm intrigued as to what alternative you'd recommend as well ?

    Whilst the obvious faults are prevalent in the jury system, which seem to me to simply be human nature, being judged by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of democratic society. No system can be faultless amd I struggle to see a better alternative.

  8. #58
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SS View Post
    I've been following this debate and I'm intrigued as to what alternative you'd recommend as well ?

    Whilst the obvious faults are prevalent in the jury system, which seem to me to simply be human nature, being judged by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of democratic society. No system can be faultless amd I struggle to see a better alternative.
    All I have challenged is the mentality that there is evidence that is cast iron / certain and therefore convictions are certain. We could have the best system in the whole world but that does not equate to it being perfect or unchallengable. We cant make a perfect system given that it will rely on people making judgements but we can be very aware of and question the uncertainty within that system rather than pretend that it is highly accurate.

  9. #59
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,677
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    All I have challenged is the mentality that there is evidence that is cast iron / certain and therefore convictions are certain. We could have the best system in the whole world but that does not equate to it being perfect or unchallengable. We cant make a perfect system given that it will rely on people making judgements but we can be very aware of and question the uncertainty within that system rather than pretend that it is highly accurate.
    I agree with you in the main.

    I tend to think it's the fairest system we could really come up with, despite the allowance for human nature.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    890
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SS View Post
    I agree with you in the main.

    I tend to think it's the fairest system we could really come up with, despite the allowance for human nature.
    It is the fairest means,but after sitting on two different juries I found it incredible what was said in the jury room.
    1)The first case I was on I was the foreman, obviously still can't actually say what the case was,we sat down and i asked if we had to make a decision now what would you say 10-2 not guilty,with two hours we had a 12-0 for guilty,some people just went along with the majority.
    2)Case: A lady actually said when we got back to the jury room.Can we make this quick I want to go shopping this afternoon.
    we didn't i can assure you,but god did she moan.

  11. #61
    WARNING! PIE EATER! BoldMiners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,527
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    It is the fairest means,but after sitting on two different juries I found it incredible what was said in the jury room.
    1)The first case I was on I was the foreman, obviously still can't actually say what the case was,we sat down and i asked if we had to make a decision now what would you say 10-2 not guilty,with two hours we had a 12-0 for guilty,some people just went along with the majority.
    2)Case: A lady actually said when we got back to the jury room.Can we make this quick I want to go shopping this afternoon.
    we didn't i can assure you,but god did she moan.
    Never actually been called up for jury service but both those reports cause me concern. Especially the first one where a 10-2 was totally reversed in the space of 2 hours!

  12. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    890
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoldMiners View Post
    Never actually been called up for jury service but both those reports cause me concern. Especially the first one where a 10-2 was totally reversed in the space of 2 hours!
    It certainly opened my eyes.When I hear of cases now where it is pretty obvious the guilt of the accused,and the judge has to asked for a majority decision 11-1 or 10-2 it takes me back to that jury room and some of the absolute rubbish I heard on both cases.

  13. #63
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoldMiners View Post
    Never actually been called up for jury service but both those reports cause me concern. Especially the first one where a 10-2 was totally reversed in the space of 2 hours!
    why are people suprised about this though. You will have a few very strong charecters in a jury who can influence other or just "out stubborn" others. Eventually peoples minds will just go tired, lose focus and make the easy decision.

    Another great example is (I think) from a book called thinking fast and slow (Daniel Kanaman(sp)) A study was done either on parole hearings or judgements in magistrates and the outcomes were hugely affected by the time that the decisions were made. For instance, if you have a hearing early on and everyone is fresh you would get a much better outcome than if it was just before dinner / break when the decision maker is fed up, low on blood sugar and it is generally more of an @rseache to make a decision. The easy decision gets made, just like the 2 people in Kevins example probably just took the easy way out of there. These are well known, scientifically validated principles.

  14. #64
    really is sorry Reacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wigan
    Age
    48
    Posts
    11,967
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    So again, what is your alternative?

  15. #65
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    An interesting question for Reacher, since he has brought up drink driving. Have a go my friend....I have ripped this from Wiki but it demonstrates what I have previously talked about but on a subject that is probably close to your heart

    A group of policemen have breathalysers displaying false drunkness in 5% of the cases. However, the breathalysers never fail to detect a truly drunk person. 1/1000 of drivers are driving drunk. Suppose the policemen then stop a driver at random, and force them to take a breathalyser test. It indicates that he or she is drunk. We assume you don't know anything else about him or her. How high is the probability they really are drunk?

  16. #66
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    So again, what is your alternative?
    your focusing on an alternative, I havent said that there needs to be one. Check if you like but I havent. All I refuse to do is adopt a mentality that is "system must be right"

  17. #67
    really is sorry Reacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wigan
    Age
    48
    Posts
    11,967
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    An interesting question for Reacher, since he has brought up drink driving. Have a go my friend....I have ripped this from Wiki but it demonstrates what I have previously talked about but on a subject that is probably close to your heart

    A group of policemen have breathalysers displaying false drunkness in 5% of the cases. However, the breathalysers never fail to detect a truly drunk person. 1/1000 of drivers are driving drunk. Suppose the policemen then stop a driver at random, and force them to take a breathalyser test. It indicates that he or she is drunk. We assume you don't know anything else about him or her. How high is the probability they really are drunk?
    Makes no odds. The roadside screening test is used to arrest. Back at the station a calibrated more complicated machine is used. Very often a person is just over the limit on the hand held device but under once back at the station therefore released without charge.

    Secondly, you can't be forced to take a breath test. There has to be certain factors involved first.

  18. #68
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reacher View Post
    Makes no odds. The roadside screening test is used to arrest. Back at the station a calibrated more complicated machine is used. Very often a person is just over the limit on the hand held device but under once back at the station therefore released without charge.

    Secondly, you can't be forced to take a breath test. There has to be certain factors involved first.
    just try the question....It isnt about the technicalities of doing the test. It is designed to see if people can understand probability which in the context of this discussion is quite important if probability and uncertainty are used to convict someone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •