Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
scientificamerican.com
Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
1–10 of 205 posts
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#2Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#3I was thinking about this just today randomly.
Every bit in computer memory or data store is just a bit flip away from being completely wrong.
In other words all data corruption -- unintentional or deliberate-- can be statistically shown as a bunch of off-by-one errors.
Of course the chance of multiple random off-by-one errors lining up exactly to help one party is astronomically low. But would a typical court of law be able to discern?
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#4The police and prosecution are the ones using these tools to attack innocent people. The article opens with a case of the corrupt prosecution intentionally and illegally withholding evidence.
This isn’t about bad science, this is about bad prosecutors who are more interested in convictions than justice.
Selective enforcement and opportunities to engage in misconduct like this are endemic in the US criminal justice system. Police and prosecutors have far too much power before and during trial, and far too much wiggle room to seek convictions for innocent people.
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#5It would be hard to really know, but I'm curious what percentage of the total US prison population is innocent. Per capita prison rate is still around 5 in 1000 according to Wikipedia, which is very high for the developed world.
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#6I didn’t see it mentioned, another case of bad math used in court (unsurprisingly to convict a black person): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mTNlVAz2fdA
And while Googling I found another video by the same channel (Vsauce2): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OMr6zCXwuns
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#7It would be hard to really know, but I'm curious what percentage of the total US prison population is innocent. Per capita prison rate is still around 5 in 1000 according to Wikipedia, which is very high for the developed world.
Innocent meaning they didn’t do the specific crime, or innocent as in someone with a clean record that was railroaded?
If you’re looking for the criminal that killed a bunch of people but not that specific case it’s not that uncommon. If you’re looking for a squeaky clean guy that was there at the wrong place at the wrong time it’s very rare. Most criminals are repeat offenders.
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#8The police and prosecution are the ones using these tools to attack innocent people. The article opens with a case of the corrupt prosecution intentionally and illegally withholding evidence. This isn’t about bad science, this is about bad prosecutors who are more interested in convictions than justice. Selective enforcement and opportunities to engage in misconduct like this are endemic in the US criminal justice sy…
I've always been perplexed by the incentive to get convictions. This is guaranteed to result in prosecutors preferring any method with a lot of false positives.
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#9I was thinking about this just today randomly. Every bit in computer memory or data store is just a bit flip away from being completely wrong. In other words all data corruption -- unintentional or deliberate-- can be statistically shown as a bunch of off-by-one errors. Of course the chance of multiple random off-by-one errors lining up exactly to help one party is astronomically low. But would a typical court of law…
[deleted]
Re: Bad science and bad statistics in the courtroom convict innocent people
#10Note that proportionately few of our federal judges have spent any time as public defenders, and a disproportionately high number have served as prosecutors. Jackson is the first supreme court justice to have served as a public defender, whereas 3 other justices have been prosecutors.
Prosecutors are incentivized to get convictions, and that slanted thinking could easily be carried on to the bench.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/few-public-defenders-b...