Roger Keith Coleman - where is the line drawn? [Archive]

drkitten

13th January 2006, 08:59 AM

At the time, his blood analysis showed that he belonged to a group of possible offenders that amounted to 0.2% of the population who could have dunnit. Enough to get him convicted and killed.

1 in 19 million means that there could have been about 15 persons in the US that could have killed Wanda McCoy. Not that many, but apparently enough to remove any "reasonable doubt".

So, where is the line drawn? When is it beyond "reasonable doubt" to convict a human being? How big a percentage of the population does it take to convict someone?

0.2%? That means that, if you live in New York City (8.2 million), 16,400 share the same data. Or (at the time, perhaps 280 million Americans?), 560,000 people.

That's a lot of people. Yet, this was deemed enough to kill someone?

Not quite. You're assuming that the only evidence against him was the DNA match. According to your original source, that wasn't the case:

Prosecutors said a mountain of other evidence pointed to Coleman as the killer: There was no sign of forced entry at McCoy's house, leading investigators to believe she knew her attacker; Coleman was previously convicted of the attempted rape of a teacher and was charged with exposing himself to a librarian two months before the murder; a pubic hair found on McCoy's body was consistent with Coleman's hair; and the original DNA tests placed him within a fraction of the population who could have left semen at the scene.

Of the 560,000 people who had such DNA, how many of them did McCoy know? How many of them had prior rape convictions? How many of them also had hair that matched the pubic hair on McCoy's body? How many of them could be placed in the area at the time that the killing occurred?

There's a maxim in law that "amateurs talk about 'burden of proof', professionals talk about 'theory of the case.'" The prosecution's case in this instance can be gleaned from the above -- we know or conclude that the perp had all these characteristics, all of which point to Coleman. We also know that Coleman is the kind of person likely to commit rape -- or at least he has in the past.

The defense's theory is equally obvious. Someone else, other than Coleman, must have commited the rape/murder,... and just have happened to share these characteristics with Coleman. I submit that it strains credibility to believe in a coincidence of such a high order.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:00 AM

Mind you, this is just a tidbit from an article. Coleman also failed a voluntary polygraph taken prior to his execution.

Not to derail, but do you think that the polygraph is a reliable tool to find out if the suspect is telling the truth?

Garrette

13th January 2006, 09:01 AM

There is no line, Claus.

"Reasonable doubt" is not defined. I believe it was intentionally left undefined as the founders knew that such a line was elusive.

I think, also, that the term originally applied not to a scientific doubt, but to a philosophical one (in a loose sense, not philosophy as a science).

Actually, a quick google leads me to this article which demonstrates my thoughts were correct, but they call it a moral sense as opposed to philosophical.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.htm

Manny

13th January 2006, 09:01 AM

That's not what I am talking about. Please read the OP.I'm reading the OP. The answer to the OP is mu. If the only evidence against someone is DNA and it is reasonable that the DNA would be there (as in a person's own house, for example), then DNA has no usefulness whatsoever no matter how many decimal places you can prove it to. In other cases it is more probative. Your question does not have a single meaningful answer.

kedo1981

13th January 2006, 09:02 AM

He was a convicted rapist
There where matching hairs on the body of the vic
His knife matched wounds on the vic
His shift at the mine was sent home

Motive
Physical evidence
Opportunity

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:04 AM

Not quite. You're assuming that the only evidence against him was the DNA match. According to your original source, that wasn't the case:

No, I am not assuming that. I am pointing to the percentage that got him convicted.

Of the 560,000 people who had such DNA, how many of them did McCoy know? How many of them had prior rape convictions? How many of them also had hair that matched the pubic hair on McCoy's body? How many of them could be placed in the area at the time that the killing occurred?

People don't always know the ones they kill.

There's a maxim in law that "amateurs talk about 'burden of proof', professionals talk about 'theory of the case.'" The prosecution's case in this instance can be gleaned from the above -- we know or conclude that the perp had all these characteristics, all of which point to Coleman. We also know that Coleman is the kind of person likely to commit rape -- or at least he has in the past.

Is that a reason to sentence someone to be killed?

The defense's theory is equally obvious. Someone else, other than Coleman, must have commited the rape/murder,... and just have happened to share these characteristics with Coleman. I submit that it strains credibility to believe in a coincidence of such a high order.

Personally, I think that he did it. What I was wondering was, just where do we draw the line? 0.2% then. 1 in 19 million today.

0.2% seems awfully insecure. 1 in 19 million? Much better. But is it enough?

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:06 AM

13th January 2006, 09:07 AM

If you were on a jury, what percentage would you deem enough to convict someone?

depends on the other evidence.

I'm not talking about what kind of evidence is used in various countries. I'm talking about what constitutes evidence beyond "reasonable doubt".

So, what is it in Denmark?

Garrette

13th January 2006, 09:08 AM

No. You may think we should draw it scientifically and consistently, and perhaps it is tending that way, but that is not how it is set up.

Or did you mean your OP to be: "Where should the line be drawn?"

A valid question, but a different one.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2006, 09:09 AM

No, I am not assuming that. I am pointing to the percentage that got him convicted.

No, you are not.

You are pointing to a later DNA test that did not get him convicted, but was considered to support or confrim that conviction.

If this particular case has nothing to do with your question, perhaps you should avoid bringing it back up. If you do bring it back up, please stop pretending that he was convicted on a .2% DNA test that was not even performed until after his execution.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:11 AM

I'm reading the OP. The answer to the OP is mu. If the only evidence against someone is DNA and it is reasonable that the DNA would be there (as in a person's own house, for example), then DNA has no usefulness whatsoever no matter how many decimal places you can prove it to. In other cases it is more probative. Your question does not have a single meaningful answer.

Sure, it does. People are convicted solely on DNA, even falsely. (http://www.click2houston.com/news/2299531/detail.html)

13th January 2006, 09:12 AM

It may have been philosophical in those days, but today, it most certainly is determined by hardcore science. That's why we can and do draw the line, in a much more consistent way than was possible 200 years ago.

Do you have juries in Denmark? I wonder.

The fact is that "hardcore science" is anything but, not in a world of expert witnesses (do you have those in Denmark?).

We, here have a jury system and the percentages that you cite are simply inputs.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:12 AM

depends on the other evidence.

Give an example. Either hypothetical or real.

So, what is it in Denmark?

I told you: I am not comparing countries.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 09:13 AM

No, I am not assuming that. I am pointing to the percentage that got him convicted.

No, you are pointed to the percentage that was cited as evidence as part of the entire body of evidence that got him convicted.

If he had been able, for example, to demonstrate a convincing alibi, he would not have been convicted at all, even if the DNA match were perfect. IFfthey had found his fingerprints on her body, they might not have needed DNA evidence at all to convict.

People don't always know the ones they kill.

No, but because of the circumstances of this particular killing, it was apparent ("evident") that the victim knew her killer.

Is that a reason to sentence someone to be killed?

Yes. It is the burden of the defense to produce "reasonable" doubt; unreasonable and unbelievable fantasies need not be (and are not) taken seriously by lawyers, judges, and juries.

Personally, I think that he did it. What I was wondering was, just where do we draw the line?

At the point where no reasonable person would seriously doubt that he did do it. At the point where the evidence is sufficiently clear and convincing that, taken as a whole, the idea that the defendant did not commit the crime is no longer seriously credible. If the DNA evidence is particularly strong, then not much else need be established. If the DNA evidence is weak, then the prosecution must muster a lot of other evidence to prove their case.

It's not a numerical thing -- it's a credibility thing.

Nyarlathotep

13th January 2006, 09:13 AM

No, I am not assuming that. I am pointing to the percentage that got him convicted.

No, you are pointing to a percentage that is ONE of the things that got him convicted. It was the sum total of the evidence that got him convicted, not that one particular piece all by itself.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:13 AM

Garrette

13th January 2006, 09:15 AM

Claus, you're doing yourself no favors.

The link you just provided indicates a lab error. The jury did not know it was an error and so came to a verdict based on what they thought was correctly processed evidence.

Even were it otherwise, it does not refute manny's point which is in fact a very good one.

Nor does it address my points.

There is no line for reasonable doubt. Period. It doesn't exist. Nor is the determination of it by a jury presumed to be a scientific exercise. Juries may use the results of science (and I hope they do), but there is no requirement to do so.

If a test were devised today which could scientifically prove or disprove someone's guilt without the remotest possibility of being in error, the defendant would still get a jury trial and the jury would still have to determine if the standard of reasonable doubt has been met.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:15 AM

No, you are not.

You are pointing to a later DNA test that did not get him convicted, but was considered to support or confrim that conviction.

If this particular case has nothing to do with your question, perhaps you should avoid bringing it back up. If you do bring it back up, please stop pretending that he was convicted on a .2% DNA test that was not even performed until after his execution.

Ahemn.

I pointed out that it was the 0.2% that got him convicted, not the DNA test. Please read what I said.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:17 AM

Do you have juries in Denmark? I wonder.

It is beside the point.

The fact is that "hardcore science" is anything but, not in a world of expert witnesses (do you have those in Denmark?).

Beside the point.

We, here have a jury system and the percentages that you cite are simply inputs.

So, a jury could decide that if there was a 50% chance, someone could be executed?

Manny

13th January 2006, 09:17 AM

Sure, it does. People are convicted solely on DNA, even falsely. (http://www.click2houston.com/news/2299531/detail.html)Liar. Mr. Sutton was convicted based on the DNA and the testimony of the victim, who identified him. The now-available evidence indicates that both the test and the victim were in error, but it was not solely DNA evidence which convicted him. That's my point.

Mephisto

13th January 2006, 09:17 AM

At the time, his blood analysis showed that he belonged to a group of possible offenders that amounted to 0.2% of the population who could have dunnit. Enough to get him convicted and killed.

You might also ask how many of that 0.2% were registered sex offenders or how many had criminal records at all. Although it has happened, and it happens in an inordinantly (racially) prejudiced manner, the death penalty isn't tossed around (since Bush is no longer governor of Texas) lightly.

There are too many things to weigh that none of us can know about. I'm guessing there were people who were hoping that the results would prove an innocent man was executed? I wonder if they could do a similar DNA test on Tookie? Would positively putting him among the 0.2% of bloodthirsty killers in that convenience store or hotel on those nights be good enough to assume he was responsible for the vicious deaths of all his victims? Logically, I suppose there could be other bloodthirsty killers in those locations at the time the crime was committed, and they simply didn't leave DNA evidence? Would even putting the 0.2% probablity of Tookie being the murderer in those instances be enough for him NOT to be seen as a modern day Jesus?

Garrette

13th January 2006, 09:18 AM

It is the burden of the defense to produce "reasonable" doubtTechnically not true.

It is the burden of the prosecution to meet the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

In practice, of course, defense attorneys who know their clients appear guilty will be proactive in undermining the prosecution so as to establish reasonable doubt, but the burden is not theirs.

Garrette

13th January 2006, 09:19 AM

Sigh....

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:21 AM

Yes. It is the burden of the defense to produce "reasonable" doubt; unreasonable and unbelievable fantasies need not be (and are not) taken seriously by lawyers, judges, and juries.

It is the burden of the prosecutor to produce evidence strong enough to remove "reasonable doubt".

What you are describing is "guilty until proven innocent".

At the point where no reasonable person would seriously doubt that he did do it. At the point where the evidence is sufficiently clear and convincing that, taken as a whole, the idea that the defendant did not commit the crime is no longer seriously credible. If the DNA evidence is particularly strong, then not much else need be established. If the DNA evidence is weak, then the prosecution must muster a lot of other evidence to prove their case.

It's not a numerical thing -- it's a credibility thing.

It becomes a numerical thing the moment the argument "0.2% is enough"/"1 in 19 million is enough" is used to convict someone.

It's the numbers that makes it credible. That's why scientific evidence is so strong, as compared to, say, the credibility of witnesses. Which we know sucks.

13th January 2006, 09:22 AM

It is beside the point.

It would help explain your ignorance is all.

Beside the point.

Ditto

So, a jury could decide that if there was a 50% chance, someone could be executed?

Who knows. You don't have juries, do you?

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 09:23 AM

No, you are pointing to a percentage that is ONE of the things that got him convicted. It was the sum total of the evidence that got him convicted, not that one particular piece all by itself.

Being a convicted rapist prior to this crime is not evidence he did this crime.

Even if it is just one of the factors, it all adds up. If the percentage had been higher - 20%? - it would not have been strong evidence.

13th January 2006, 09:24 AM

Sigh....

I know.

Willful ignorance, black and white solutions to gray area. Book him, Dan-O.

Manny

13th January 2006, 09:25 AM

Willful ignorance...Maybe he's just testing out defense theories.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2006, 09:25 AM

Ahemn.

I pointed out that it was the 0.2% that got him convicted, not the DNA test. Please read what I said.

I misread the test you were referring to; I apologize for that.

But the .2% figure is still, as others have repeatedly pointed out, not "the" thing that convicted him. I cannot explain why you continue to use that figure as some type of mantra after being informed that other evidence was also included for the jury and after disclaiming the importance of the example in the first place; apparently neither can you.

Edited to correct typo

Number Six

13th January 2006, 09:26 AM

This thread brings up an interesting thing that I've thought about before, namely the absurdity of making categories from a continuim. If you watch for it you see this happen in a lot of situations. You have to either (a) not make categories, which can cause problems or (b) make categories, which creates absurdities.

Where do you draw the line percentage-wise on reasonable doubt? No matter what you say it's absurd. Suppose you say 90%. Then 90.00001% confident is guilty and 89.99999% confident is not guilty. Those are two different conclusions even though 90.00001% and 89.99999% are virtually identical levels of confidence.

Here's another one: People sometimes say say "I'd rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail?" When I hear that I think, "Okay, so where's your line? 11? 12? 100?" Not picking a line is absurd because it means you don't believe anyone should ever go to jail and picking a line is absurd because it means you end up concluding something like "I'd rather 307 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail but I would not rather 308 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail."

There are lots of examples besides legal ones though and if you pay attention you see them a lot.

Darat

13th January 2006, 09:27 AM

That is beside the point. The case itself is not important, I used it as an example.

DNA test, blood test, whatever is used as evidence. However it is calculated is beside the point, whatever is used is beside the point.

What I am asking is, what percentage decides what is "reasonable doubt"?

What do you mean?

There is no percentage in jury trials it is up to jury to decide.

In the UK several convictions have been overturned or found unsafe when it's later been shown that an expert witnesses over-egged the statistics and an appeal court has decided that it could have influenced the jury's decision.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2006, 09:28 AM

Jocko

13th January 2006, 09:29 AM

Indeed. Let's see if we can get it back on track.

What percentage decides what is "reasonable doubt"?

I asked you first. Please answer the question.

13th January 2006, 09:29 AM

There is no percentage in jury trials it is up to jury to decide.

In the UK several convictions have been overturned or found unsafe when it's later been shown that an expert witnesses over-egged the statistics and an appeal court has decided that it could have influenced the jury's decision.

Yes, but you have jury trials in the UK. This is not at all obvious to one that comes from a society where that is an alien concept.

corplinx

13th January 2006, 09:29 AM

Not to derail, but do you think that the polygraph is a reliable tool to find out if the suspect is telling the truth?

When I posted that, I considered adding a paragraph qualifying it.

In the case of Coleman, his polygraph was administered it seems as a chance for him to possibly stay his execution as he had already been convicted and sentenced so I just decided to let it go.

corplinx

13th January 2006, 09:37 AM

If we want to treat this as totally hypothetical.

In a hypothetical world with a DNA bank, we just lookup DNA found at a crime scene and match it to large pool of possible killers. In that world, something would still have to be done to narrow down that pool of people to a single killer. I imagine in that world a person close to the victim who was a sex offender would be the primary suspect at least. However, there would still have to be some form of evidence other than the DNA to prove they did it. In the DNA bank model where everyone is on file, it actually requires you have proof _other_ than DNA.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2006, 09:48 AM

Claus:

It seems to me that I recall you stating that if you saw someone on a plane with a gun, you would kill him, "no questions asked."

It was pointed out that the person might well be either an air marshal or other police/government agent, and you indicated that you were not willing to take the chance that the person was not a terrorist. You'd just kill him. Is that an accurate summary of your position on that?

Because if that is true,

(1) Do you know the percentage chance that the person was a terrorist versus an air marshal?

(2) Would you think that the chances of it being an air marshal would be greater than .2%?

(3) (a)There is *some* chance that the person was an airmarshal or police officer, etc., yes? (b) So there is some chance you would kill an innocent person, yes?

(4) (a)What percentage of certainty do you require before killing someone in that situation? Is 99.8% enough? (b)What number is enough?

(5) (a) Would you accept that same amount of certainty from a jury on a death penalty case? (b) Why or why not?

Related:

(1) Is there a small chance that the "gun" you saw on a passenger is something that you mistook for a gun -- perhaps a toy or a PDA or other item?

(2) What percentage chance is that, do you think?

(3) What percentage chance of making an error on spotting the gun is acceptablke before you kill someone on a plane?

Thanks in advance.

Manny

13th January 2006, 09:55 AM

Claus:

It seems to me that I recall you stating that if you saw someone on a plane with a gun, you would kill him, "no questions asked."

Edited to remove potential libellious statement.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 09:57 AM

I pointed out that it was the 0.2% that got him convicted, not the DNA test.

.... and you were wrong.

The 0.2% was not what got him convicted. It was one factor among many that got him convicted.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 09:59 AM

Being a convicted rapist prior to this crime is not evidence he did this crime.

Yes, it is.

Even if it is just one of the factors, it all adds up. If the percentage had been higher - 20%? - it would not have been strong evidence.

... and so the defense's argument that someone else just happened to have the same characteristics would have been more "reasonable," and it's more likely that the jury would have acquitted.

13th January 2006, 09:59 AM

.... and you were wrong.

The 0.2% was not what got him convicted. It was one factor among many that got him convicted.

Kitten, in the big D they have a Guilt-O-Meter that gives precise percentages.

Mojo

13th January 2006, 09:59 AM

"Reasonable doubt" is not defined. I believe it was intentionally left undefined as the founders knew that such a line was elusive. Actually, I suspect the concept was inherited from the English legal system which the American system was based on.

The term seems to be kept fairly vague here as well: the Judicial studies Board website (http://www.jsboard.co.uk/criminal_law/cbb/mf_02.htm) (they're responsible for training judges) says: Normally, when directing a jury on the standard of proof, it is not necessary to use the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But where it has been used in the trial, e.g. by counsel in their speeches, it is desirable to give the following direction: 'The prosecution must make you sure of guilt, which is the same as proving the case beyond reasonable doubt': see R v Adey, unreported (97/5306/W2), where the Court of Appeal cautioned against any attempt at a more elaborate definition of 'being sure' or 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Similarly in R v Stephens (2002) The Times, 27 June the CACD said that it was unhelpful to seek to distinguish between being 'sure' and 'certain'.

...

If the prosecution has not made you sure that the defendant has (set out what the prosecution must prove), that is an end of the matter and you must find the defendant 'Not Guilty'.

Mark

13th January 2006, 10:01 AM

DNA evidence has shown that Roger Keith Coleman was, indeed, guilty. Or, rather:

At the time, his blood analysis showed that he belonged to a group of possible offenders that amounted to 0.2% of the population who could have dunnit. Enough to get him convicted and killed.

1 in 19 million means that there could have been about 15 persons in the US that could have killed Wanda McCoy. Not that many, but apparently enough to remove any "reasonable doubt".

So, where is the line drawn? When is it beyond "reasonable doubt" to convict a human being? How big a percentage of the population does it take to convict someone?

0.2%? That means that, if you live in New York City (8.2 million), 16,400 share the same data. Or (at the time, perhaps 280 million Americans?), 560,000 people.

That's a lot of people. Yet, this was deemed enough to kill someone?

The question becomes, how many of those 15 people also would have had opportunity and motive? The answer is almost certainly zero...or as close to it as one could possibly get in this universe.

For my part, this is in no way a comment on the death penalty. Merely about his guilt...which is now proved way beyond anything remotely close to reasonable doubt.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 10:01 AM

Technically not true.

It is the burden of the prosecution to meet the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

As I said eariler, "amateurs discuss 'burden of proof,' professionals discuss 'theory of the case.'"

If the defense cannot establish "reasonable doubt," the defendant will be convicted. Simply arguing that the prosecution "did not meet the reasonable doubt standard" is about the quickest way to the penitentiary known to law.

13th January 2006, 10:05 AM

This might help...
In most common law jurisdictions, the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while the judge determines the law. These "peers of the accused" are responsible for listening to a dispute, evaluating the evidence presented, deciding on the facts, and making a decision in accordance with the rules of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and their jury instructions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_instructions). Typically, the jury only judges guilt or innocence, but the actual penalty is set by the judge.
Wiki

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 10:06 AM

No, you are pointing to a percentage that is ONE of the things that got him convicted. It was the sum total of the evidence that got him convicted, not that one particular piece all by itself.

Would it mean that he had gotten off if it was, say, 20%? That's reasonable doubt, isn't it? 1 in 5? Sure, it is.

He gets off at 20%. He doesn't get off at 0.2%.

Claus, you're doing yourself no favors.

The link you just provided indicates a lab error. The jury did not know it was an error and so came to a verdict based on what they thought was correctly processed evidence.

That's not the point. The guy was convicted based on DNA evidence. That it turned out to be a dud is another discussion.

There is no line for reasonable doubt. Period. It doesn't exist. Nor is the determination of it by a jury presumed to be a scientific exercise. Juries may use the results of science (and I hope they do), but there is no requirement to do so.

The moment we accept scientific evidence in the courtroom, we also attach significance to the numbers. If we have decided that 20% is not beyond reasonable doubt, but 0.2% is, then where is the line drawn?

If a test were devised today which could scientifically prove or disprove someone's guilt without the remotest possibility of being in error, the defendant would still get a jury trial and the jury would still have to determine if the standard of reasonable doubt has been met.

That's a different discussion.

You might also ask how many of that 0.2% were registered sex offenders or how many had criminal records at all. Although it has happened, and it happens in an inordinantly (racially) prejudiced manner, the death penalty isn't tossed around (since Bush is no longer governor of Texas) lightly.

It doesn't matter how often it is tossed around. The issue is, where the line is drawn.

There are too many things to weigh that none of us can know about. I'm guessing there were people who were hoping that the results would prove an innocent man was executed? I wonder if they could do a similar DNA test on Tookie? Would positively putting him among the 0.2% of bloodthirsty killers in that convenience store or hotel on those nights be good enough to assume he was responsible for the vicious deaths of all his victims? Logically, I suppose there could be other bloodthirsty killers in those locations at the time the crime was committed, and they simply didn't leave DNA evidence? Would even putting the 0.2% probablity of Tookie being the murderer in those instances be enough for him NOT to be seen as a modern day Jesus?

That's what I'm asking: Where do we draw the line?

Who knows.

I'm asking you.

But the .2% figure is still, as others have repeatedly pointed out, not "the" thing that convicted him. I cannot explain why you continue to use that figure as some type of mantra after being informed that other evidence was also included for the jury and after disclaiming the importance of the example in the first place; apparently neither can you.

I'm not using it as a mantra. I'm pointing out that 0.2% was enough at the time. Today, we would probably demand much stronger evidence than that. There's no question that, with science, we can narrow down the possible suspects considerably.

The question is, where do we draw the line?

This thread brings up an interesting thing that I've thought about before, namely the absurdity of making categories from a continuim. If you watch for it you see this happen in a lot of situations. You have to either (a) not make categories, which can cause problems or (b) make categories, which creates absurdities.

Where do you draw the line percentage-wise on reasonable doubt? No matter what you say it's absurd. Suppose you say 90%. Then 90.00001% confident is guilty and 89.99999% confident is not guilty. Those are two different conclusions even though 90.00001% and 89.99999% are virtually identical levels of confidence.

Here's another one: People sometimes say say "I'd rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail?" When I hear that I think, "Okay, so where's your line? 11? 12? 100?" Not picking a line is absurd because it means you don't believe anyone should ever go to jail and picking a line is absurd because it means you end up concluding something like "I'd rather 307 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail but I would not rather 308 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail."

There are lots of examples besides legal ones though and if you pay attention you see them a lot.

I don't know if it's absurd; the moment we attach "legal value" to scientific evidence, we have also drawn a line in the sand. The question is, where?

There is no percentage in jury trials it is up to jury to decide.

In the UK several convictions have been overturned or found unsafe when it's later been shown that an expert witnesses over-egged the statistics and an appeal court has decided that it could have influenced the jury's decision.

That's another aspect: People are, generally, not very able to determine if something is statistically sound or valid. How many jurors understand p=0.5?

I asked you first. Please answer the question.

I asked this in the OP. Please answer the question.

When I posted that, I considered adding a paragraph qualifying it.

In the case of Coleman, his polygraph was administered it seems as a chance for him to possibly stay his execution as he had already been convicted and sentenced so I just decided to let it go.

That didn't answer my question: Do you think that the polygraph is a reliable tool to find out if the suspect is telling the truth?

If we want to treat this as totally hypothetical.

In a hypothetical world with a DNA bank, we just lookup DNA found at a crime scene and match it to large pool of possible killers. In that world, something would still have to be done to narrow down that pool of people to a single killer. I imagine in that world a person close to the victim who was a sex offender would be the primary suspect at least. However, there would still have to be some form of evidence other than the DNA to prove they did it. In the DNA bank model where everyone is on file, it actually requires you have proof _other_ than DNA.

I can easily see a world where each person's DNA is stored for exactly this purpose. That, of course, is another discussion. Fascinating, nevertheless.

Claus:

It seems to me that I recall you stating that if you saw someone on a plane with a gun, you would kill him, "no questions asked."

It was pointed out that the person might well be either an air marshal or other police/government agent, and you indicated that you were not willing to take the chance that the person was not a terrorist. You'd just kill him. Is that an accurate summary of your position on that?

Because if that is true,

(1) Do you know the percentage chance that the person was a terrorist versus an air marshal?

(2) Would you think that the chances of it being an air marshal would be greater than .2%?

(3) (a)There is *some* chance that the person was an airmarshal or police officer, etc., yes? (b) So there is some chance you would kill an innocent person, yes?

(4) (a)What percentage of certainty do you require before killing someone in that situation? Is 99.8% enough? (b)What number is enough?

(5) (a) Would you accept that same amount of certainty from a jury on a death penalty case? (b) Why or why not?

Related:

(1) Is there a small chance that the "gun" you saw on a passenger is something that you mistook for a gun -- perhaps a toy or a PDA or other item?

(2) What percentage chance is that, do you think?

(3) What percentage chance of making an error on spotting the gun is acceptablke before you kill someone on a plane?

Thanks in advance.

This is irrelevant to the question I posed. Please stay on topic.

Nyarlathotep

13th January 2006, 10:19 AM

Would it mean that he had gotten off if it was, say, 20%? That's reasonable doubt, isn't it? 1 in 5? Sure, it is.

He gets off at 20%. He doesn't get off at 0.2%.

No, 20% is not reasonable doubt. 0.2% isn't, all by itself either, but 0.2% combined with whatever other evidence was presented against him apparently was. The concept of 'reasonable doubt' is a purposefully vague concept, because it has to include a lot of things that can't be broken down into numbers.

When you invent a machine that can take all of the evidence (including forensic evidence, witeness testimony, motive, etc.), and spit out a precise perentage that someone is guilty, THEN we can talk about what precise percentage constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. In the absence of such a wonderful device, it's pointless.

Jocko

13th January 2006, 10:21 AM

Oh good, another "Daned if you do, Daned if you don't" thread.

Yippie.

13th January 2006, 10:22 AM

This is irrelevant to the question I posed. Please stay on topic.

:jaw-dropp

Amazing lack of self awareness.

Donks

13th January 2006, 10:22 AM

At the time, his blood analysis showed that he belonged to a group of possible offenders that amounted to 0.2% of the population who could have dunnit. Enough to get him convicted and killed.
Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but at the time of his conviction the 0.2 value played absolutely no role, since that came in 1990.

Coleman was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of McCoy, his wife's sister, who was found raped, stabbed and nearly beheaded in her home in the coal mining town of Grundy.

Initial DNA and blood tests in 1990 placed Coleman within the 0.2 percent of the population who could have produced the semen at the crime scene. But his lawyers said the expert they hired to conduct those initial DNA tests misinterpreted the results.

That's a lot of people. Yet, this was deemed enough to kill someone?
As other people have stated, the 0.2 or the 1 in 19 million by itself does not get a conviction. It is part of the evidence that backs up the case for a conviction. The question I'd think relevant is when is the probability enough to make a particular piece of evidence relevant. If I was a juror and the prosecutor did not present blood type and DNA results if a sample was present at the scene I'd consider that very relevant in favor of the accused. OTOH if he gave a 50% chance of it being the accused sample I'd simply not consider it. I'd start considering it in context alongside the rest of the evidence above 90-95%. But such percentages are only possible with some types of evidence. How do you assign a value to a lack of aliby? To the existance of a motive? To the demeanor of the accused at the witness stand? To eye witness credibility? I can't give a number of what constitutes "reasonable doubt" because part of the evidence will give no such numerical value.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 10:22 AM

It is the burden of the prosecutor to produce evidence strong enough to remove "reasonable doubt".

What you are describing is "guilty until proven innocent".

Not at all.

It becomes a numerical thing the moment the argument "0.2% is enough"/"1 in 19 million is enough" is used to convict someone.

It's the numbers that makes it credible.

No, it's the numbers in conjunction with the theory of the case that make it credible. More specifically, it is the prosecution's presentation of the evidence that makes it credible -- and it is the defense's presentation of their evidence that makes it incredible.

The prosecution stood up and said : "Coleman did it, and here are all the reasons why we believe he did it -- and why you should, too." The jury obviously found that evidence convincing (as you might expect.) Given that the case even came to trial in the first place, the prosectution was obviously able to muster enough evidence and argument to establish a prima facie case against him.

This is where the defense steps in in the trial. When you step up to being the defense, the prosecution has already laid out, step by step, exactly what his "theory of the case" is -- what he belives, why he believes it, and most importantly, why the jury should believe it as well. You can usually assume at this point that the jury does believe it, since if the case weren't superficially convincing, your client would not be on trial inthe first place. If you do not establish a reason for the jury to disbelieve the argument they have just heard, your client will be convicted. That's a simple statement of fact, and an effect of the way legal procedures play out.

You have basically two choices. You can either argue that the prosecution's evidence is wrong (that the blood sample does NOT match, contrary to what the lab says) -- or you can present an alternative set of events -- what YOU believe happened, why you believe it, and why the jury should believe your version. That's your "theory of the case." If your theory is at least superficially convincing, you should be able to get off -- even if your theory is less convincing or less likely than the prosecutions. (That's what "reasonable doubt" really means.) But if you're going to take this route, your theory of the case has to explain the same set of evidence that the prosecution's does.

What other theory do you have that accounts, not only for the 0.2% blood match, but also for the fact that there was no forced entry, that pubic hair matching the perp's was found on the crime scene, that the victim was well-known to the defendant, and that the defendant had a well-established motive?

Just saying "well, it could have happened some other way," is not a reasonable doubt.

rikzilla

13th January 2006, 10:25 AM

Would it mean that he had gotten off if it was, say, 20%? That's reasonable doubt, isn't it? 1 in 5? Sure, it is.
Reasonable to whom?
A: One dozen jurors.

He gets off at 20%. He doesn't get off at 0.2%.
Sure why not?

The moment we accept scientific evidence in the courtroom, we also attach significance to the numbers. If we have decided that 20% is not beyond reasonable doubt, but 0.2% is, then where is the line drawn?
The placement of the line is the subjective judgement of 12 of your peers. Not a perfect or flawless system for sure...but it's the best we have.

I don't know if it's absurd; the moment we attach "legal value" to scientific evidence, we have also drawn a line in the sand. The question is, where?
In the "hearts" of the jurors. Subjective judgement cannot be thrown out in favor of raw data Claus. If so we could just feed the "scientific data" into a computer and have it spit out a verdict. Is that what you're arguing in favor? Because that's where your digital value judgements are leading....

That's another aspect: People are, generally, not very able to determine if something is statistically sound or valid. How many jurors understand p=0.5?

How many Cray computers have human compassion,..human judgement???

-z]

drkitten

13th January 2006, 10:28 AM

Would it mean that he had gotten off if it was, say, 20%?

Depends on the other evidence presented, and the convincingness of the defense's case.

If a DNA analysis showed, for example, that the semen was from an Icelandic male, and the case happened in a small town in New Zealand where the only Icelandic man within 500km had been seen six hours earlier in a restaurant with the woman,.... no, probably wouldn't have gotten off.

If the DNA had been proven beyond question to have come from one of a pair of identical twins, both of whom lived next door to the victim, and there was no other evidence to convict, then both twins would probably get off.

It doesn't matter whether there's one other potential match, or one million other potential matches if none of the other matches can reasonably be linked up with the crime.

Upchurch

13th January 2006, 10:28 AM

I don't know if it's absurd; the moment we attach "legal value" to scientific evidence, we have also drawn a line in the sand. The question is, where?
I don't understand this assertion. Forensic science has been around since the 700s*, yet forensic science can only provide so much evidence and must be compensated for by other sources which cannot necessarily be assigned hard numbers.

Why does more accurate scientific numbers suddenly necessitate a numerical tolerance for "doubt" (which itself is qualitative)?

* sorry, the 7th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science#Forensic_history).

13th January 2006, 10:39 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury ...

Nozed-Wow. That was the only piece of evidence offered at trial?

Corp-Convicted in 1982. Testing was only done in 1990. Retesting was just done. His conviction and death penalty sentence were not the result of DNA testing!

Manny-Alone? Mu. "We found the defendant's DNA at the crime scene, and his semen in the victim." Well, except that the crime scene was the defendant's house and the victim was his wife. Not probative on it's own. That's why all those people are busting your chops. DNA evidence alone is not useful. DNA evidence along with other evidence can often be very useful.

Ed-It dosen't. It is one input to a jury who then decides.

Corp-
During Coleman's trial, authorities said there was compelling evidence of guilt, including hair on McCoy's body that was similar to Coleman's and the account of a jailhouse informant. Officials also noted that he had been convicted of attempted rape in 1977.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010502463.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010502463.html)

Mind you, this is just a tidbit from an article. Coleman also failed a voluntary polygraph taken prior to his execution.

Manny-I already said. 100% of the jurors must agree that there is no reasonable doubt.

Kitten-Not quite. You're assuming that the only evidence against him was the DNA match. According to your original source, that wasn't the case:

Kedo-He was a convicted rapist
There where matching hairs on the body of the vic
His knife matched wounds on the vic
His shift at the mine was sent home

Motive
Physical evidence
Opportunity

Ed-depends on the other evidence.

Nozed-If this particular case has nothing to do with your question, perhaps you should avoid bringing it back up. If you do bring it back up, please stop pretending that he was convicted on a .2% DNA test that was not even performed until after his execution.

Ed-We, here have a jury system and the percentages that you cite are simply inputs.

Kitten-No, you are pointed to the percentage that was cited as evidence as part of the entire body of evidence that got him convicted.

Nyarl-No, you are pointing to a percentage that is ONE of the things that got him convicted. It was the sum total of the evidence that got him convicted, not that one particular piece all by itself.

Nozed-But the .2% figure is still, as others have repeatedly pointed out, not "the" thing that convicted him. I cannot explain why you continue to use that figure as some type of mantra after being informed that other evidence was also included for the jury and after disclaiming the importance of the example in the first place; apparently neither can you.

Corp-In a hypothetical world with a DNA bank, we just lookup DNA found at a crime scene and match it to large pool of possible killers. In that world, something would still have to be done to narrow down that pool of people to a single killer. I imagine in that world a person close to the victim who was a sex offender would be the primary suspect at least. However, there would still have to be some form of evidence other than the DNA to prove they did it. In the DNA bank model where everyone is on file, it actually requires you have proof _other_ than DNA.

Kitten-The 0.2% was not what got him convicted. It was one factor among many that got him convicted.

Donks-Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but at the time of his conviction the 0.2 value played absolutely no role, since that came in 1990.
As other people have stated, the 0.2 or the 1 in 19 million by itself does not get a conviction. It is part of the evidence that backs up the case for a conviction.

Kitten-No, it's the numbers in conjunction with the theory of the case that make it credible. More specifically, it is the prosecution's presentation of the evidence that makes it credible -- and it is the defense's presentation of their evidence that makes it incredible.

I ask that you find the accused guily of trolling in the frirst degree.

I rest my case.

rikzilla

13th January 2006, 10:42 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury ...

I ask that you find the accused guily of trolling in the frirst degree.

I rest my case.

Over 20,000 burgers sold!
Yes; a troll he be....but I'm still lookin' forward to buying him a beer at TAM...as long as it doesn't damage his hard-drive that is... :rolleyes:

-z

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 10:58 AM

No, 20% is not reasonable doubt. 0.2% isn't, all by itself either, but 0.2% combined with whatever other evidence was presented against him apparently was. The concept of 'reasonable doubt' is a purposefully vague concept, because it has to include a lot of things that can't be broken down into numbers.

If the other evidence pointed to a guilty verdict, but the blood pointed to a 20% chance, would you still consider a guilty verdict?

The point is, at some point, we have to decide what percentage we accept as evidence of guilt.

When you invent a machine that can take all of the evidence (including forensic evidence, witeness testimony, motive, etc.), and spit out a precise perentage that someone is guilty, THEN we can talk about what precise percentage constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. In the absence of such a wonderful device, it's pointless.

Isn't that what scientific evidence used in courtrooms aims at?

Oh good, another "Daned if you do, Daned if you don't" thread.

Yippie.

It is not me who wants to focus on nationalities. Go figure.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but at the time of his conviction the 0.2 value played absolutely no role, since that came in 1990.

Wrong. His blood type was compared to the semen found at the scene of the crime. That yielded the 0.2% possibility. His DNA was tested in 1990.

As other people have stated, the 0.2 or the 1 in 19 million by itself does not get a conviction. It is part of the evidence that backs up the case for a conviction. The question I'd think relevant is when is the probability enough to make a particular piece of evidence relevant. If I was a juror and the prosecutor did not present blood type and DNA results if a sample was present at the scene I'd consider that very relevant in favor of the accused. OTOH if he gave a 50% chance of it being the accused sample I'd simply not consider it. I'd start considering it in context alongside the rest of the evidence above 90-95%. But such percentages are only possible with some types of evidence. How do you assign a value to a lack of aliby? To the existance of a motive? To the demeanor of the accused at the witness stand? To eye witness credibility? I can't give a number of what constitutes "reasonable doubt" because part of the evidence will give no such numerical value.

Wait, wait. Are you saying that nobody gets convicted solely on DNA evidence?

Not at all.

Why not?

No, it's the numbers in conjunction with the theory of the case that make it credible. More specifically, it is the prosecution's presentation of the evidence that makes it credible -- and it is the defense's presentation of their evidence that makes it incredible.

The prosecution stood up and said : "Coleman did it, and here are all the reasons why we believe he did it -- and why you should, too." The jury obviously found that evidence convincing (as you might expect.) Given that the case even came to trial in the first place, the prosectution was obviously able to muster enough evidence and argument to establish a prima facie case against him.

This is where the defense steps in in the trial. When you step up to being the defense, the prosecution has already laid out, step by step, exactly what his "theory of the case" is -- what he belives, why he believes it, and most importantly, why the jury should believe it as well. You can usually assume at this point that the jury does believe it, since if the case weren't superficially convincing, your client would not be on trial inthe first place. If you do not establish a reason for the jury to disbelieve the argument they have just heard, your client will be convicted. That's a simple statement of fact, and an effect of the way legal procedures play out.

You have basically two choices. You can either argue that the prosecution's evidence is wrong (that the blood sample does NOT match, contrary to what the lab says) -- or you can present an alternative set of events -- what YOU believe happened, why you believe it, and why the jury should believe your version. That's your "theory of the case." If your theory is at least superficially convincing, you should be able to get off -- even if your theory is less convincing or less likely than the prosecutions. (That's what "reasonable doubt" really means.) But if you're going to take this route, your theory of the case has to explain the same set of evidence that the prosecution's does.

What other theory do you have that accounts, not only for the 0.2% blood match, but also for the fact that there was no forced entry, that pubic hair matching the perp's was found on the crime scene, that the victim was well-known to the defendant, and that the defendant had a well-established motive?

Just saying "well, it could have happened some other way," is not a reasonable doubt.

No, your theory of the case does not have to explain the same set of evidence that the prosecution's does. You are not required to address the prosecution's evidence at all: All you need to do is establish a credible defense.

Sure, it would usually be a good idea to address the prosecution's evidence, especially if it looks convincing. But you are not required to.

Reasonable to whom? A: One dozen jurors.

Which consists of people. I'm asking people here where they would draw the line.

Sure why not?

Fine. Tell me when he doesn't get off, and explain why. 0.2% will not get him off, you say. 20% will. What will? 2%? 5%?

Remember, I'm asking you. If you were a jury member.

The placement of the line is the subjective judgement of 12 of your peers. Not a perfect or flawless system for sure...but it's the best we have.

Probably. I'm not questioning the jury system, I'm asking where to draw the line.

In the "hearts" of the jurors. Subjective judgement cannot be thrown out in favor of raw data Claus. If so we could just feed the "scientific data" into a computer and have it spit out a verdict. Is that what you're arguing in favor? Because that's where your digital value judgements are leading....

How many Cray computers have human compassion,..human judgement???

I am arguing that if we decide that scientific evidence carries a digital weight, we also have to determine what the limits are.

Depends on the other evidence presented, and the convincingness of the defense's case.

If a DNA analysis showed, for example, that the semen was from an Icelandic male, and the case happened in a small town in New Zealand where the only Icelandic man within 500km had been seen six hours earlier in a restaurant with the woman,.... no, probably wouldn't have gotten off.

How on Earth would you determine that?? You would need an Orwellian society to do that. In which case, you wouldn't need a jury...

If the DNA had been proven beyond question to have come from one of a pair of identical twins, both of whom lived next door to the victim, and there was no other evidence to convict, then both twins would probably get off.

It doesn't matter whether there's one other potential match, or one million other potential matches if none of the other matches can reasonably be linked up with the crime.

But that's your problem: You determine that it is reasonable to be linked to a crime by pointing to a number.

I don't understand this assertion. Forensic science has been around since the 700s*, yet forensic science can only provide so much evidence and must be compensated for by other sources which cannot necessarily be assigned hard numbers.

Why does more accurate scientific numbers suddenly necessitate a numerical tolerance for "doubt" (which itself is qualitative)?

* sorry, the 7th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science#Forensic_history).

Because that's what science basically is: Numbers. Facts. Data. Sure, it's also interpretation of the facts, but first and foremost, it's facts.

If we can, by way of scientific evidence, determine that there is a 0.001% chance that you committed this crime (thereby making it so unlikely that you will be acquitted), yet determine that there is a 15% chance that you committed another crime (thereby making it so likely that you will be found quilty), we have to determine where that line is drawn.

Donks

13th January 2006, 11:13 AM

Wrong. His blood type was compared to the semen found at the scene of the crime. That yielded the 0.2% possibility. His DNA was tested in 1990.
The link posted in the OP does not say that.
Wait, wait. Are you saying that nobody gets convicted solely on DNA evidence?
I did not say that. Could you point me to some cases where that happened? Cause for instance in your link "People are convicted solely on DNA, even falsely (http://www.click2houston.com/news/2299531/detail.html)" it says that "And basically, it had to do with the fact that I am now convinced that part of the evidence that was used in his case was erroneous." If DNA was only part of the evidence, then he was not solely convicted falsely on DNA.

Ziggurat

13th January 2006, 11:15 AM

The point is, at some point, we have to decide what percentage we accept as evidence of guilt.

Yes indeed. But at what point do we have to make that decision? Why, when we're ON a jury and faced with a situation where probability of guilt can be assigned a number (which, BTW, is not generally the case). Does that decision need to be made before that? No, it doesn't. Should that question be left to each individual juror? Yes, it should. So what's your point?

rikzilla

13th January 2006, 11:18 AM

Your question actually goes to the heart of the jury system Claus. You ask where this line is drawn? I told you. In the hearts of 12 people who's subjective judgement of the objective facts of the case is the final and overarching factor. Until an objective description of "reasonable" is codified in law then that's where the line must be drawn. Justice is a human concept; and cannot be defined by science. Scientific concepts can be presented in evidence but in the end a clever turn of phrase that can sway a jury a such as:
If the glove don't fit you must acquit!"
....can be worth more than all the scientific data you've got. Like I said; imperfect; but human....

-z

drkitten

13th January 2006, 11:19 AM

If the other evidence pointed to a guilty verdict, but the blood pointed to a 20% chance, would you still consider a guilty verdict?

I would consider a guilty verdict if the other evidence pointed to it, irrespective of the blood test results. Possibly even if the blood test exonerated the defendant, if I had reason to believe that the blood test had been improperly conducted

The point is, at some point, we have to decide what percentage we accept as evidence of guilt.

:notm:

Isn't that what scientific evidence used in courtrooms aims at?

:notm:

Why not?

Because that's not how legal procedures and rules of evidence work.

No, your theory of the case does not have to explain the same set of evidence that the prosecution's does.

:notm:

You are not required to address the prosecution's evidence at all: All you need to do is establish a credible defense.

And in practical terms, no defense can be credible if it doesn't address the prosecution's evidence.

But you are not required to.

You are not required to put on a competent defense, no. Nor are you required to be acquitted.

I'm asking people here where they would draw the line.

and ignoring the answers you're getting.

Fine. Tell me when he doesn't get off, and explain why. 0.2% will not get him off, you say. 20% will. What will? 2%? 5%?

Remember, I'm asking you. If you were a jury member.

A sufficient body of evidence as a whole to establish reasonable doubt.

I am arguing that if we decide that scientific evidence carries a digital weight, we also have to determine what the limits are.

.... which is exactly why scientific evidence specifically does not carry a digital weight.

If we can, by way of scientific evidence, determine that there is a 0.001% chance that you committed this crime (thereby making it so unlikely that you will be acquitted),

That's a false and fallacious hypothesis. If we can determine that there is a 0.001% chance that you commited this crime -- and yet, we can also determine that for every other person in the world, there is no chance whatsoever they commited the crime, then you will probably be convicted. Sherlock Holmes expressed it this way over a century ago : "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth."

Conviction is NOT done on a system of numeric weights. It's done on a system of comparative evidence. If your evidence is sufficiently credible to establish a "reasonable doubt" that you committed the crime, you will be acquitted. But that's not any specific piece of evidence -- that's the body of evidence you accumulate as a whole. There are cases in law where evidence that actually makes it less likely (in formal probabilistic terms) that the defendant committed the crime has been used to convict -- because at the same time it made the defendent less likely, it made all the other hypotheses even more obviously outrageous.

We have to determine where that line is drawn.

That's because there is no line -- and therefore it is drawn nowhere.

Nyarlathotep

13th January 2006, 11:26 AM

If the other evidence pointed to a guilty verdict, but the blood pointed to a 20% chance, would you still consider a guilty verdict?

That would depend on what the other evidence is and how convincing it is. If the DNA testing only pointed to a 20% chance of his guilt, then it would have to be pretty damning. If, as in this case, it pointed to a 99.98% chance of him being guilty, it would not have to be as strong. Thee are too many grey areas for a single binary yes or no choice that would be true in all cases.

The point is, at some point, we have to decide what percentage we accept as evidence of guilt.

Sure, if things that can be nicely broken down into percentages are the only things looked at. Like I said, when you can invent a machine that takes ALL of the evidence, even things like witness testimony, and can spit out a nice neat probability of guilt, then we would have to decide what percentage constitutes evidence of guilt. Real life doesn't work that way, sorry to disapoint. Until it does, we have to rely on human judgement.

Melendwyr

13th January 2006, 11:28 AM

"Reasonable doubt" is approximately 5%.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 11:38 AM

"Reasonable doubt" is approximately 5%.

Excuse me?

On what basis do you make that statement?

From Wikipedia:

Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person (usually this means the mind of the judge or jury). There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain).

(N.b. "reversible error" means, in plain-speak, that someone messed up so badly we need to go back and re-do the trial from scratch.)

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 12:09 PM

The link posted in the OP does not say that.

That may be. That doesn't change the facts.

I did not say that.

I asked if you did.

Could you point me to some cases where that happened? Cause for instance in your link "People are convicted solely on DNA, even falsely (http://www.click2houston.com/news/2299531/detail.html)" it says that "And basically, it had to do with the fact that I am now convinced that part of the evidence that was used in his case was erroneous." If DNA was only part of the evidence, then he was not solely convicted falsely on DNA.

I've already provided a case. But, sure, here's one more:

In a First, Man Convicted on DNA Is Executed
April 29, 1994, Friday
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18, Column 2, 480 words

Timothy W. Spencer died Wednesday night in Virginia's electric chair, becoming the first person executed in the United States for a conviction based on the DNA-matching technology popularly known as genetic fingerprinting.
Source (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B17F93F540C7A8EDDAD0894DC494D 81)

Within the year, Robert Melias of the UK became the first person in history to be convicted on DNA evidence,
Source (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/37604789.cms)

“Man first in Kentucky to be convicted on DNA evidence.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 19, 2001.
A man who police linked to an April rape using DNA evidence has become the first person in Kentucky to be
convicted with help from the state's DNA database. The man was in the DNA database due to an rape he
committed 15 years ago. Currently, Kentucky collects DNA samples only from convicted sex offenders, and
the database contains about 3200 profiles. The database is compared (unfavorably) to the larger, more mature
database of its neighbor, Virginia.
Source (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:UAdedSRl1gkJ:www.dnaresource.com/10-26%2520Summary.pdf+%22convicted+on+dna%22&hl=da)

“DNA Databank Leads To Collar.” The Toronto Sun, October 19, 2001.
In Canada, the national DNA databank helped Durham police make an arrest in a three-year-old sexual assault.
The suspect’s DNA was entered into the national database after a conviction of assault causing bodily harm.
"It's like winning the lottery," said a local police spokesman
Source (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:UAdedSRl1gkJ:www.dnaresource.com/10-26%2520Summary.pdf+%22convicted+on+dna%22&hl=da)

Yes indeed. But at what point do we have to make that decision? Why, when we're ON a jury and faced with a situation where probability of guilt can be assigned a number (which, BTW, is not generally the case). Does that decision need to be made before that? No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. You have to make up what you will accept as evidence before you enter the trial. Otherwise, you'll just end up judging from a biased POV.

Should that question be left to each individual juror? Yes, it should. So what's your point?

Already stated, several times: Where do we draw the line?

Your question actually goes to the heart of the jury system Claus. You ask where this line is drawn? I told you. In the hearts of 12 people who's subjective judgement of the objective facts of the case is the final and overarching factor. Until an objective description of "reasonable" is codified in law then that's where the line must be drawn. Justice is a human concept; and cannot be defined by science. Scientific concepts can be presented in evidence but in the end a clever turn of phrase that can sway a jury a such as:
....can be worth more than all the scientific data you've got. Like I said; imperfect; but human....

-z

Interesting that you chose the O.J. trial as an example. Do you think that justice was done?

I would consider a guilty verdict if the other evidence pointed to it, irrespective of the blood test results. Possibly even if the blood test exonerated the defendant, if I had reason to believe that the blood test had been improperly conducted

That's not the case. There is no reason to doubt the test. There is a 20% chance. You would still disregard a blood sample?

What other kinds of evidence are you prepared to disregard? DNA? A photo of the accused at the scene of the crime?

I'm trying to establish just where - yes - you draw the line.

:notm:

:notm:

In which case, you must disregard all scientific evidence.

Because that's not how legal procedures and rules of evidence work.

Sure it is: You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

:notm:

You are arguing that the prosecutor determines how the case is to be presented by the defense? You are very wrong.

And in practical terms, no defense can be credible if it doesn't address the prosecution's evidence.

That would depend on the prosecution's evidence.

You are not required to put on a competent defense, no. Nor are you required to be acquitted.

Non sequitur.

and ignoring the answers you're getting.

I'm not ignoring anything. So far, I have gotten no answers to where people would draw the line.

A sufficient body of evidence as a whole to establish reasonable doubt.

A blood test: 5%? 0.5%? What?

A DNA test? 5%? 0.5%? What?

.... which is exactly why scientific evidence specifically does not carry a digital weight.

Rubbish. Of course it does. That's why we can calculate the movements of the planets thousands of years ahead.

That's a false and fallacious hypothesis. If we can determine that there is a 0.001% chance that you commited this crime -- and yet, we can also determine that for every other person in the world, there is no chance whatsoever they commited the crime, then you will probably be convicted. Sherlock Holmes expressed it this way over a century ago : "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth."

Not so. How can you eliminate the impossible? Can you guarantee that there are no fairies? That psychics don't talk to the dead?

Conviction is NOT done on a system of numeric weights. It's done on a system of comparative evidence. If your evidence is sufficiently credible to establish a "reasonable doubt" that you committed the crime, you will be acquitted. But that's not any specific piece of evidence -- that's the body of evidence you accumulate as a whole. There are cases in law where evidence that actually makes it less likely (in formal probabilistic terms) that the defendant committed the crime has been used to convict -- because at the same time it made the defendent less likely, it made all the other hypotheses even more obviously outrageous.

The problem in our respective judicial systems is that we have relied way too heavily on testimonial evidence. We know that testimonials are notoriously unreliable. That's why we concentrate more and more on scientific evidence, because there is far less judging.

That's because there is no line -- and therefore it is drawn nowhere.

The moment you say "0.2%" and use that in a courtroom, you have drawn the line. Somewhere.

That would depend on what the other evidence is and how convincing it is. If the DNA testing only pointed to a 20% chance of his guilt, then it would have to be pretty damning. If, as in this case, it pointed to a 99.98% chance of him being guilty, it would not have to be as strong. Thee are too many grey areas for a single binary yes or no choice that would be true in all cases.

Sure, there are. But in the case of testimonial evidence, we know that it is unreliable. Memory is not a tape recorder we can just rewind and play over and over again. So, where are we going? Scientific evidence. And with scientific evidence, we can and must draw the line.

Sure, if things that can be nicely broken down into percentages are the only things looked at. Like I said, when you can invent a machine that takes ALL of the evidence, even things like witness testimony, and can spit out a nice neat probability of guilt, then we would have to decide what percentage constitutes evidence of guilt. Real life doesn't work that way, sorry to disapoint. Until it does, we have to rely on human judgement.

Again, I'm not saying that we should leave it to computers. But we cannot ignore that we have started going in that direction. Scientific evidence trumps testimonials, and for very good reasons. It should, for pete's sake.

But that requires of us that we draw the line.

That seems very, very hard to do.

"Reasonable doubt" is approximately 5%.

Why? What do you base that on?

Grammatron

13th January 2006, 12:13 PM

Yes, it does. You have to make up what you will accept as evidence before you enter the trial. Otherwise, you'll just end up judging from a biased POV.

Say what now?

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 12:16 PM

Say what now?
What is it you don't understand?

Grammatron

13th January 2006, 12:18 PM

What is it you don't understand?

Who has to "make up what [they] will accept as evidence before [they] enter the trial."?

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 12:21 PM

Who has to "make up what [they] will accept as evidence before [they] enter the trial."?
How else will they be able to judge fairly?

If you were accused, would you want a jury that knew nothing of law?

Ziggurat

13th January 2006, 12:22 PM

Yes, it does. You have to make up what you will accept as evidence before you enter the trial. Otherwise, you'll just end up judging from a biased POV.

I know that for myself, the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt would likely depend somewhat on the severity of the punishment under consideration. If the likely punishment light, then the consequences of a wrongful conviction are small and I might be willing to entertain more doubt than if the punishment is large. There are simply too many factors involved, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to draw up massive tables of scenarios and corresponding required probabilities of guilt or to figure out some sort of formula for how I would calculate it.

Furthermore, and perhaps more fundamentally, why would having heard the trial before deciding necessarily bias you? Which way would it bias you? Is any change in your standards automatically a bias? Or does it perhaps require a little more, does it require the change to be more likely in one direction despite the merits? You claim that making that decision in the jury room means the decision is biased, but I cannot take that as a given.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 12:23 PM

Already stated, several times: Where do we draw the line?

And already answered, several times: There is no line to be drawn.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 12:26 PM

How else will they be able to judge fairly?

By judging the facts, as they are supposed to.

If you were accused, would you want a jury that knew nothing of law?

It's not the jury's job to know the law. It's the judge's. That's one of those fundamental rules of jurisprudence that goes back to Anglo-Saxon days....

Grammatron

13th January 2006, 12:26 PM

How else will they be able to judge fairly?

Listen to the testimony of witnesses.

If you were accused, would you want a jury that knew nothing of law?
Not sure what you mean by "nothing" but most do not know that much about the law and are instructed on them before/during trial/delibarations.

Jurror don't have to be lawyers with encyclopedic knowledge of the law, they have to be impartial.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 12:27 PM

I know that for myself, the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt would likely depend somewhat on the severity of the punishment under consideration. If the likely punishment light, then the consequences of a wrongful conviction are small and I might be willing to entertain more doubt than if the punishment is large. There are simply too many factors involved, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to draw up massive tables of scenarios and corresponding required probabilities of guilt or to figure out some sort of formula for how I would calculate it.

Furthermore, and perhaps more fundamentally, why would having heard the trial before deciding necessarily bias you? Which way would it bias you? Is any change in your standards automatically a bias? Or does it perhaps require a little more, does it require the change to be more likely in one direction despite the merits? You claim that making that decision in the jury room means the decision is biased, but I cannot take that as a given.

But that's exactly what we need to do, if we are to judge our fellow citizens: Make up our minds about what constitutes sufficient evidence to either convict someone or free someone.

Just because there are a lot of factors doesn't mean we can shy away from our responsibility. If you want to argue that, then you are also arguing the abolishment of the juror system.

Thanz

13th January 2006, 12:27 PM

If we can, by way of scientific evidence, determine that there is a 0.001% chance that you committed this crime (thereby making it so unlikely that you will be acquitted), yet determine that there is a 15% chance that you committed another crime (thereby making it so likely that you will be found quilty), we have to determine where that line is drawn.
I don't think that you really u nderstand the role of DNA evidence, despite that others here are explaining it to you. DNA evidence, on its own, isn't of much value. It needs to fit in with some theory of the case that makes sense. All that DNA can do, really, is place you in a certain location. If your sperm is found in a dead woman, there is a presumption that at some point you had sex with her. That alone will not get you convicted of anything.

So, I don't think you can determine by way of scientific evidence any degree of guilt or innocence of anyone. Science just doesn't make that kind of judgment.

Ziggurat

13th January 2006, 12:28 PM

How else will they be able to judge fairly?

If you were accused, would you want a jury that knew nothing of law?

But the law does not refer to numerical probabilities of guilt. And as drkitten pointed out, doing so in a trial is pretty much verboten. So the jury not having come to such a decision prior to the case is a COMPLETELY separate question than whether or not they know the law. And besides, it is not the jury's job to know the law: that's the judge's, and he instructs the jury on the law. The jury is supposed to decide the facts of the case, and for that, they need no prior knowledge of the law at all.

Ziggurat

13th January 2006, 12:30 PM

But that's exactly what we need to do, if we are to judge our fellow citizens: Make up our minds about what constitutes sufficient evidence to either convict someone or free someone.

But you have still not presented ANY argument as to why this decision must be made prior to the trial, or how making it after hearing evidence will bias it.

rikzilla

13th January 2006, 12:31 PM

Interesting that you chose the O.J. trial as an example. Do you think that justice was done?

Of course it was...the jury said so! ;) Now if you ask the family of Nicole they'd say no...but again justice is subjective and the subjective perspective of the jurors is all that matters. The jury basically nullified because they thought the bigger issues were police misconduct along with racial bias rather than OJ's guilt. This is indeed justice as defined by the jury.

-z

BTW: I picked the OJ jury to make this point. Jury nullification is as valid an outcome as a conviction or aquital is. It's part of the imperfect system which as a whole works pretty well.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 12:43 PM

But that's exactly what we need to do, if we are to judge our fellow citizens: Make up our minds about what constitutes sufficient evidence to either convict someone or free someone.

Well, the law -- and typical jury instructions -- are fairly clear about that.

You vote to convict if you are sure that the defendant did it. That's what "reasonable doubt" means.

From the West Virginia jury instructions:

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense----the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.

From the US Ninth Circuit:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes charged, you must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.

From Alaska:

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be proof of such a convincing character that, after consideration, you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in your important affairs. A defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture.

And from the defining case in Canada (R. vs. Lifchus):

A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand you must remember that it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high.

In short if, based upon the evidence before the court, you are sure that the accused committed the offence you should convict since this demonstrates that you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

From Claus again:

Just because there are a lot of factors doesn't mean we can shy away from our responsibility.

Yes. And attempting to draw a line and say "beyond this numerical point, guilt has been proven" is explicitly an attempt to abrogate exactly our responsibility as citizens and as jurors. The question is not "what was the magic cutoff likelihood?" The question is, was, and remains "are you, as an individual juror, sure that the defendant did it? Under normal circumstances, would you hesitate to say that he had done it? Are you willing to rely on the statement that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime of which he was accused?"

Trying to "draw a line" is trying to abrogate responsibility. The courts have consistently recognized this line of argument and identify it not only as an error, but as an error so pernicious as to demand the reversal of a conviction obtained by this line of argument and to send the trial back for a fresh start from scratch.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 12:44 PM

Listen to the testimony of witnesses.

Which is notoriously unreliable. If you weigh testimonies that much, do you similarly argue that millions of Americans have been abducted by aliens?

Not sure what you mean by "nothing" but most do not know that much about the law and are instructed on them before/during trial/delibarations.

Jurror don't have to be lawyers with encyclopedic knowledge of the law, they have to be impartial.

Which no jury is. We're back to square 1.

And already answered, several times: There is no line to be drawn.

If you decide that 0.2% is enough, then you have already drawn the line somewhere. All you need to do is tell me where.

By judging the facts, as they are supposed to.

But that's just it: The scientific facts weigh far more than testimonials. We can quantify and qualify scientific evidence far better than testimonials. And we do: There is no question that if someone grabs his balls (which is what testimony means!) swearing that he saw you on the scene of the crime, doesn't weigh nearly as much as scientific evidence that proves you were not on the scene of the crime.

It's not the jury's job to know the law. It's the judge's. That's one of those fundamental rules of jurisprudence that goes back to Anglo-Saxon days....

The jury needs to know how to evaluate the evidence pro et contra during the trial. I would be very surprised to learn that they are instructed to weigh testimonials heavier than scientific evidence.

I don't think that you really u nderstand the role of DNA evidence, despite that others here are explaining it to you. DNA evidence, on its own, isn't of much value. It needs to fit in with some theory of the case that makes sense. All that DNA can do, really, is place you in a certain location. If your sperm is found in a dead woman, there is a presumption that at some point you had sex with her. That alone will not get you convicted of anything.

If that is the only DNA found and she's found raped and killed, sure it will. That is highly damaging evidence.

So, I don't think you can determine by way of scientific evidence any degree of guilt or innocence of anyone. Science just doesn't make that kind of judgment.

The moment we attach numerical significance to data, it does.

But the law does not refer to numerical probabilities of guilt.

Yes, it does. 0.2% is enough. 20% is not.

And as drkitten pointed out, doing so in a trial is pretty much verboten. So the jury not having come to such a decision prior to the case is a COMPLETELY separate question than whether or not they know the law. And besides, it is not the jury's job to know the law: that's the judge's, and he instructs the jury on the law. The jury is supposed to decide the facts of the case, and for that, they need no prior knowledge of the law at all.

Already addressed.

But you have still not presented ANY argument as to why this decision must be made prior to the trial, or how making it after hearing evidence will bias it.

Sheesh, give me time to respond.... :p

Of course it was...the jury said so! ;) Now if you ask the family of Nicole they'd say no...but again justice is subjective and the subjective perspective of the jurors is all that matters. The jury basically nullified because they thought the bigger issues were police misconduct along with racial bias rather than OJ's guilt. This is indeed justice as defined by the jury.

Yeah. I can tell from your smiley that you do not find this a "just" verdict. I quite agree. Could it have been different? Yes, if scientific evidence was weighed more than, say, some stupid rants from a racist cop.

And the glove thingie? That's equivalent to letting Uri Geller handle the spoons in private, before a "scientific" test....

I hope you understand why we laughed - and cried - at American "justice" on that day. :(

BTW: I picked the OJ jury to make this point. Jury nullification is as valid an outcome as a conviction or aquital is. It's part of the imperfect system which as a whole works pretty well.

But I hope you agree that, with scientific evidence, we are upping the ante? That we are improving the standard of evidence?

drkitten

13th January 2006, 12:50 PM

If you decide that 0.2% is enough, then you have already drawn the line somewhere. All you need to do is tell me where.

No one has made that decision.

No one can make that decision.

The decision that was made was, "considering the body of evidence as a whole, we consider the defendant to be guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)." You cannot focus on any specific piece of evidence to suggest that there was a bright line regarding THAT piece that was controlling.

There is no line to be drawn, except for the line, explicitly drawn on a case-by-case basis, between "the overall body of evidence presented did or did not convince the jury."

drkitten

13th January 2006, 12:53 PM

Yes, it does. 0.2% is enough. 20% is not.

Citation? Please provide a single case where the judge expressed that.

I just presented four citations about what "reasonable doubt" really means under Anglo-American law.

Grammatron

13th January 2006, 12:54 PM

Which is notoriously unreliable. If you weigh testimonies that much, do you similarly argue that millions of Americans have been abducted by aliens?

You right, that's why we also have evidence and expert testimony on what that evidence means. You know...a trial.

Which no jury is. We're back to square 1.
100%? Of course not, nothing is perfect. That's why both sides choose the jurrors who they think would be most impartial.

No one is saying the system is perfect nor can it be.

Now you may say "well what's the percentage at which we will accept the guilty verdict" The answer as someone here already said, is simple, 100% of the jurry.

I am fine with that system.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 12:55 PM

Well, the law -- and typical jury instructions -- are fairly clear about that.

You vote to convict if you are sure that the defendant did it. That's what "reasonable doubt" means.

In which case, it is up to the prosecutor to prove that he is guilty. Not, as you claimed, the other way around.

Yes. And attempting to draw a line and say "beyond this numerical point, guilt has been proven" is explicitly an attempt to abrogate exactly our responsibility as citizens and as jurors. The question is not "what was the magic cutoff likelihood?" The question is, was, and remains "are you, as an individual juror, sure that the defendant did it? Under normal circumstances, would you hesitate to say that he had done it? Are you willing to rely on the statement that the defendant did, in fact, commit the crime of which he was accused?"

Trying to "draw a line" is trying to abrogate responsibility. The courts have consistently recognized this line of argument and identify it not only as an error, but as an error so pernicious as to demand the reversal of a conviction obtained by this line of argument and to send the trial back for a fresh start from scratch.

No, no, no. It's not a question of being sure. I doubt anyone can find a "sure" case. It's a question of weighing the evidence. And when we introduce scientific evidence, we abandon - at least to some degree - bias.

I can understand why this is so hard. When I read that it was 1 in 19 million, I thought: "Hey, that's good enough for me!". The 0.2% sure wasn't. But then, I wondered....why do I think the 1 in 19 million was OK, but the 0.2% was not?

Whether we like it or not, the moment we introduce numbers in justice to distinguish between different pieces of evidence, we also have to draw the line somewhere.

I have to admit that I am a wee bit surprised that people in general don't recognize this.

rikzilla

13th January 2006, 12:55 PM

Yeah. I can tell from your smiley that you do not find this a "just" verdict. I quite agree. Could it have been different? Yes, if scientific evidence was weighed more than, say, some stupid rants from a racist cop.

But again...that's up to the jury isn't it?

And the glove thingie? That's equivalent to letting Uri Geller handle the spoons in private, before a "scientific" test....
We agree perfectly...

I hope you understand why we laughed - and cried - at American "justice" on that day. :(
"We" who??

But I hope you agree that, with scientific evidence, we are upping the ante? That we are improving the standard of evidence?

Of course we are...and that's a fine thing...but it doesn't answer your question Claus! Stay on topic! Your line is not objective...it's subjective and will be re-quantified with every jury a court seats. That's the system and it IMHO beats feeding data into a computer which decides cases purely "objectively". Sheesh! What kind of scary world would that be!? Positively Orwellian! Hell; Orwell didn't even think up as devious a scenario as that!

-z

Upchurch

13th January 2006, 12:57 PM

Because that's what science basically is: Numbers. Facts. Data. Sure, it's also interpretation of the facts, but first and foremost, it's facts.

If we can, by way of scientific evidence, determine that there is a 0.001% chance that you committed this crime (thereby making it so unlikely that you will be acquitted), yet determine that there is a 15% chance that you committed another crime (thereby making it so likely that you will be found quilty), we have to determine where that line is drawn.
:confused: That doesn't answer my question at all.

Grammatron

13th January 2006, 01:00 PM

No, no, no. It's not a question of being sure. I doubt anyone can find a "sure" case. It's a question of weighing the evidence. And when we introduce scientific evidence, we abandon - at least to some degree - bias.

Give me an example of scientific evidence, aside from DNA.

Keep in mind, both sides will call in an expert to "explain" the scientific evidence. And keep in mind, odds are very, very good most on the jurry won't have a PhD or any other degree in that field of science.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 01:04 PM

No, no, no. It's not a question of being sure.

Totally, completely, and 100% wrong.

Re-read the court cases cited. Re-read the jury instructions.

It's exactly about being sure. It's about being as sure about the defendant's guilt as about anything else that you normallyIact upon without hesitation in your own life. It's about no longer
have any "reasonable" doubt that the statement you make -- "the defendant is guilty" -- is true.

That's exactly what this is about.

I can understand why this is so hard.

So can I. Because you're wrong -- so wrong that if you explained this to the judge and the attorneys during jury selection, you would be excused for cause, because you are unable and unwilling to accept your responsibility as a juror and citizen.

When I read that it was 1 in 19 million, I thought: "Hey, that's good enough for me!". The 0.2% sure wasn't. But then, I wondered....why do I think the 1 in 19 million was OK, but the 0.2% was not?

Because you are unable or unwilling to accept your responsibility as a juror and citizen. Because you are trying to abrogate your own responsibility by finding some magical totem in "science" that will relieve you of the moral burden of deciding for yourself whether you are convinced enough of someone's guilt to sentence him or her to death or a lengthy prison sentence.

Re-read the decisions and instructions. It's not about drawing bright lines. It is, and officially, with the imprimatur of Canada's highest court -- about "being sure."

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 01:04 PM

No one has made that decision.

No one can make that decision.

The decision that was made was, "considering the body of evidence as a whole, we consider the defendant to be guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)." You cannot focus on any specific piece of evidence to suggest that there was a bright line regarding THAT piece that was controlling.

There is no line to be drawn, except for the line, explicitly drawn on a case-by-case basis, between "the overall body of evidence presented did or did not convince the jury."

Of course the line is drawn. The decision has to be made.

Otherwise, no scientific evidence would ever be introduced in a courtroom.

Citation? Please provide a single case where the judge expressed that.

I just presented four citations about what "reasonable doubt" really means under Anglo-American law.

I was throwing out a number. I don't think (hope!) that any jury would convict a person based on that number.

You right, that's why we also have evidence and expert testimony on what that evidence means. You know...a trial.

But sometimes, all we have is DNA. You have to address that.

100%? Of course not, nothing is perfect. That's why both sides choose the jurrors who they think would be most impartial.

No one is saying the system is perfect nor can it be.

Now you may say "well what's the percentage at which we will accept the guilty verdict" The answer as someone here already said, is simple, 100% of the jurry.

I am fine with that system.

Do you think that scientific evidence should have carried more weight at the O.J. trial?

But again...that's up to the jury isn't it?

Always. But should they weigh testimonials more (heavier? Is that the correct word?) than scientific evidence? How is scientific evidence weighed against other scientific evidence?

We agree perfectly...

Miracles do happen.

"We" who??

Non-Americans. It was a travesty.

Of course we are...and that's a fine thing...but it doesn't answer your question Claus! Stay on topic! Your line is not objective...it's subjective and will be re-quantified with every jury a court seats. That's the system and it IMHO beats feeding data into a computer which decides cases purely "objectively". Sheesh! What kind of scary world would that be!? Positively Orwellian! Hell; Orwell didn't even think up as devious a scenario as that!

I have said it several times now: I am not arguing that we should leave it to a computer. Pay attention to what I say.

:confused: That doesn't answer my question at all.

Sure, it does.

Give me an example of scientific evidence, aside from DNA.

Fingerprints.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2006, 01:05 PM

This is irrelevant to the question I posed. Please stay on topic.

If you truly believe those questions to be off topic, then you simply don't understand the premises upon which you base your own question.

That, I suppose, is the most charitable conclusion, so I'll go with that.

Thanz

13th January 2006, 01:06 PM

If that is the only DNA found and she's found raped and killed, sure it will. That is highly damaging evidence.
Damaging? Yes. Will you be convicted in the absence of other evidence? No. It needs to fit in with the rest of the other evidence. Like the fact that she was raped. You need evidence for that. And that she was killed. And if it turns out that the woman was the accused's wife and they had sex before he went to work, the DNA won't even matter.

Which all goes to say that DNA evidence is worthless without the other evidentiary context. No one is convicted on DNA evidence alone.

The moment we attach numerical significance to data, it does.
Absolutely not. Science does NOT make a guilt/innocence judgment, with or without a "numerical significance" factor. It is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

NoZed Avenger

13th January 2006, 01:07 PM

I'll have to assume that you also cannot give a percentage of certainty for your own willingness to take a life -- which makes me wonder why a jury's percentage has to be worked out.

And way to avoide the whole .2% figure being bogus point, again. Continue with the mantra.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 01:11 PM

But sometimes, all we have is DNA. You have to address that.

And sometimes all we have is a ballistics report, and sometimes all we have is a fingerprint, and sometimes all we have is a jailhouse informant.

We address each of these cases in the same way.

Was the evidence credible? Am I, the juror, sure that the defendant is guilty?

If so, I vote to convict. If not, I vote to acquit.

Always. But should they weigh testimonials more (heavier? Is that the correct word?) than scientific evidence? How is scientific evidence weighed against other scientific evidence?

"more heavily." And the answer is, explicitly, the more credible evidence is given greater weight. Regardless of whether it's "scientific evidence," witness testimonials, documentary evidence, what have you. The more credible evidence is given greater weight. And if at the end of the day, the jury believes the evidence and is sure that the defendant did it, he is convicted.

Upchurch

13th January 2006, 01:11 PM

Sure, it does.Repeat yourself enough, maybe it'll just become true. :rolleyes:

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 01:11 PM

Totally, completely, and 100% wrong.

Re-read the court cases cited. Re-read the jury instructions.

It's exactly about being sure. It's about being as sure about the defendant's guilt as about anything else that you normallyIact upon without hesitation in your own life. It's about no longer
have any "reasonable" doubt that the statement you make -- "the defendant is guilty" -- is true.

That's exactly what this is about.

To me, being "sure" means "no doubt whatsoever". You may have another opinion. I doubt, however, that you can find a criminal case where there is "no doubt whatsoever".

So can I. Because you're wrong -- so wrong that if you explained this to the judge and the attorneys during jury selection, you would be excused for cause, because you are unable and unwilling to accept your responsibility as a juror and citizen.

Rubbish. All I would say was that I had serious doubts about what constitutes evidence. If anything, that supports me being a responsible juror and citizen.

Only people who accept what they feel are unacceptable criteria are responsible jurors and citizens?

Because you are unable or unwilling to accept your responsibility as a juror and citizen. Because you are trying to abrogate your own responsibility by finding some magical totem in "science" that will relieve you of the moral burden of deciding for yourself whether you are convinced enough of someone's guilt to sentence him or her to death or a lengthy prison sentence.

You are attributing motives that I simply don't have.

Re-read the decisions and instructions. It's not about drawing bright lines. It is, and officially, with the imprimatur of Canada's highest court -- about "being sure."

We are not discussing any country's standard of justice.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 01:12 PM

I was throwing out a number. I don't think (hope!) that any jury would convict a person based on that number.

No. No jury would convict a person based on any specific number at all.

That's the central point you keep missing. It's not the number. It's the overall body of evidence.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 01:16 PM

To me, being "sure" means "no doubt whatsoever".

Good. Now re-read the citations and tell me what being "sure" means to the court.

Rubbish. All I would say was that I had serious doubts about what constitutes evidence. If anything, that supports me being a responsible juror and citizen.

No, it supports you being a vigilante who is willing to compromise the entire "rule of law" over your own personal opinions and prejudices -- you're in exactly the same position as someone who is unwilling to convict a Christian, and unwilling to acquit a Moslem. You're walking into the the courtroom with your own standard of evidence that is incompatible with what the justice system demands.

And you will be excused, for exactly the same reason.

Only people who accept what they feel are unacceptable criteria are responsible jurors and citizens?

No, you're an irresponsible citizen because you do not accept rational standards of justice.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 01:17 PM

We are not discussing any country's standard of justice.

Which is why I produced four citations from three different jurisdictions that all say more or less the same thing -- and that disagree entirely with you.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 01:17 PM

Damaging? Yes. Will you be convicted in the absence of other evidence? No. It needs to fit in with the rest of the other evidence. Like the fact that she was raped. You need evidence for that. And that she was killed. And if it turns out that the woman was the accused's wife and they had sex before he went to work, the DNA won't even matter.

Which all goes to say that DNA evidence is worthless without the other evidentiary context. No one is convicted on DNA evidence alone.

Of course there has to be a crime if you are to be convicted.

Absolutely not. Science does NOT make a guilt/innocence judgment, with or without a "numerical significance" factor. It is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Like it or not, people are sentenced based on the numerical values.

And sometimes all we have is a ballistics report, and sometimes all we have is a fingerprint, and sometimes all we have is a jailhouse informant.

We address each of these cases in the same way.

Was the evidence credible? Am I, the juror, sure that the defendant is guilty?

If so, I vote to convict. If not, I vote to acquit.

Based on the probability determined by the scientific evidence, yes.

"more heavily."

Thank you.

And the answer is, explicitly, the more credible evidence is given greater weight. Regardless of whether it's "scientific evidence," witness testimonials, documentary evidence, what have you. The more credible evidence is given greater weight. And if at the end of the day, the jury believes the evidence and is sure that the defendant did it, he is convicted.

And, as we know, testimonials are not reliable. Scientific evidence is far better. So, what evidence will you give more credibility?

Scientific evidence. Which is numbers. So, you have to draw the line.

No. No jury would convict a person based on any specific number at all.

That's the central point you keep missing. It's not the number. It's the overall body of evidence.

But they do. They do attach significance to a number.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 01:18 PM

Good. Now re-read the citations and tell me what being "sure" means to the court.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

No, it supports you being a vigilante who is willing to compromise the entire "rule of law" over your own personal opinions and prejudices -- you're in exactly the same position as someone who is unwilling to convict a Christian, and unwilling to acquit a Moslem. You're walking into the the courtroom with your own standard of evidence that is incompatible with what the justice system demands.

And you will be excused, for exactly the same reason.
...
No, you're an irresponsible citizen because you do not accept rational standards of justice.

We disagree.

drkitten

13th January 2006, 01:19 PM

Like it or not, people are sentenced based on the numerical values.

Evidence?

Jocko

13th January 2006, 01:21 PM

I never thought I'd miss your tortured parsings of "creator." Not until I saw your tortured parsings of "reasonable doubt."

Claus, is this some kind of mental disorder, or is this just how you get your rocks off? Because this kind of behavior is akin to a sexual fetishist mutilating his own genitals for an audience. I'm nauseated to see it, yet I must ask why he deems it so bloody necessary.

CFLarsen

13th January 2006, 01:21 PM

Evidence?
Coleman.

You deny this?

13th January 2006, 01:24 PM

http://www.earthlink.net/elink/img/art/vfive/i_sm_webwatch_05_shark.gif

Simple yet eliquent

Manny

13th January 2006, 01:51 PM

In a First, Man Convicted on DNA Is Executed
April 29, 1994, Friday
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18, Column 2, 480 words

Timothy W. Spencer died Wednesday night in Virginia's electric chair, becoming the first person executed in the United States for a conviction based on the DNA-matching technology popularly known as genetic fingerprinting.
SourceInteresting you should pick this case. DNA evidence was indeed the main factor which convinced the jury to convict. Of course you're lying again; it wasn't the only thing. Indeed, he was selected for DNA tests precisely because of his signature MO, which police from a neighboring town of Arlington discussed when they came by to arrest Spencer for another murder in their town.

But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that DNA evidence in the Spencer case exonerated someone else who had previously been convicted of murder. See, the guy's MO was so specific that after he was convicted they started to run his DNA against other crimes with that MO. A guy named David Vasquez had actually pleaded guilty to murder and sexual assault. There was a pretty good circumstantial case against him, he confessed, and in his confession he mentioned details of the crime which police thought only the killer would know. He pleaded guilty. But he didn't do it. Timothy Spencer did it. DNA proved that and Mr. Vasquez was pardoned. The same guy's DNA did justice twice in that instance.

Darat

13th January 2006, 01:56 PM

...snip...

That's another aspect: People are, generally, not very able to determine if something is statistically sound or valid. How many jurors understand p=0.5?

...snip...

That is why the prosecution and the defence bring in expert witnesses to explain what the facts are and the significance of those facts. That's why as I mentioned that recently in the UKseveral women have had their convictions overturned or determined to have been unsafe because an expert witness was found to have misrepresented the significance of certain statistics and the appeal court judged that would have more then likely (in the UK no one can tell - jurists can not speak of their deliberations) to have significantly influenced the jury's decision.

Grammatron

13th January 2006, 02:01 PM

But sometimes, all we have is DNA. You have to address that.

When? When has police ever found someone's DNA and said, "Well case closed, his DNA is there! No more investigating is needed."

Do you think that scientific evidence should have carried more weight at the O.J. trial?

Than what?

Didn't they throw a lot of the DNA evidence out because it was contaminated?

Fingerprints.

How many point-match? What surface? What conditions the surface was in?

You see how it can be opened up to interpretation by different experts?

Darat

13th January 2006, 02:03 PM

Of course the line is drawn. The decision has to be made.

Otherwise, no scientific evidence would ever be introduced in a courtroom.
...snip...

Any evidence a prosecutor or a defender wants to bring in - if they exconvince the court it is relevant - can be brought in.

Fingerprints.

That's a good example - you do know that fingerprint evidence is starting to get a bit controversial? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18725174.500

The decision of what is evidence or not can be submitted is not determined by scientists - it is determined by the court and judicial process.

But just in case I am missing the point of your argument can you try restating it?

13th January 2006, 02:11 PM

But sometimes, all we have is DNA. You have to address that.

I am going to say this slowly...

If all, ALL, that you have is DNA how, in the absence of other evidence, would you ever associate it with a specific human being?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:58 AM

Interesting you should pick this case. DNA evidence was indeed the main factor which convinced the jury to convict. Of course you're lying again; it wasn't the only thing. Indeed, he was selected for DNA tests precisely because of his signature MO, which police from a neighboring town of Arlington discussed when they came by to arrest Spencer for another murder in their town.

But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that DNA evidence in the Spencer case exonerated someone else who had previously been convicted of murder. See, the guy's MO was so specific that after he was convicted they started to run his DNA against other crimes with that MO. A guy named David Vasquez had actually pleaded guilty to murder and sexual assault. There was a pretty good circumstantial case against him, he confessed, and in his confession he mentioned details of the crime which police thought only the killer would know. He pleaded guilty. But he didn't do it. Timothy Spencer did it. DNA proved that and Mr. Vasquez was pardoned. The same guy's DNA did justice twice in that instance.

........completely missing the point. Oh, well.

That is why the prosecution and the defence bring in expert witnesses to explain what the facts are and the significance of those facts. That's why as I mentioned that recently in the UKseveral women have had their convictions overturned or determined to have been unsafe because an expert witness was found to have misrepresented the significance of certain statistics and the appeal court judged that would have more then likely (in the UK no one can tell - jurists can not speak of their deliberations) to have significantly influenced the jury's decision.

Even experts can get it wrong. How can we demand of our peers that they understand it?

When? When has police ever found someone's DNA and said, "Well case closed, his DNA is there! No more investigating is needed."

I'm not talking about investigation. I'm talking about evidence.

Than what?

That testimonials.

Didn't they throw a lot of the DNA evidence out because it was contaminated?

I can't remember the details. It was a sideshow, a circus.

How many point-match? What surface? What conditions the surface was in?

You see how it can be opened up to interpretation by different experts?

Fingerprints have been considered evidence for, what, over 100 years? You asked for an example of scientific evidence, aside from DNA. I gave it to you.

Any evidence a prosecutor or a defender wants to bring in - if they exconvince the court it is relevant - can be brought in.

Absolutely. The defense does not have to work solely with the prosecutor's evidence.

That's a good example - you do know that fingerprint evidence is starting to get a bit controversial? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18725174.500

Yeps.

The decision of what is evidence or not can be submitted is not determined by scientists - it is determined by the court and judicial process.

But just in case I am missing the point of your argument can you try restating it?

That, when we introduce numbers as a probability of guilt, then we have to draw the line somewhere. We have a number, "1 in 19 million", that indicates guilt. What about 1 in 1 million? Could work, too. 1 in 1000? Dodgy.

I'm reminded of the old joke: A man and a woman is conversing over dinner at a family party. The man asks "Would you go to bed with me for $1 million?". The woman answers "Yes!". The man asks "Would you go to bed with me for $10?" The woman answers "Of course not! Do you think I'm a whore?" The man replies "We've already established that. Now, we got to find out how cheap you are."

If all, ALL, that you have is DNA how, in the absence of other evidence, would you ever associate it with a specific human being?

I don't understand the question.

Grammatron

14th January 2006, 02:23 AM

Fingerprints have been considered evidence for, what, over 100 years? You asked for an example of scientific evidence, aside from DNA. I gave it to you.

And I explained how it doesn't work in a vacume nor is it an absolute nor is it ever used on its own.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 03:23 AM

And I explained how it doesn't work in a vacume nor is it an absolute nor is it ever used on its own.
That's not the point.

Fingerprints will give you a certainty of X%, or 1 in Y.

DNA will give you a certainty of A%, or 1 in B.

However you end up with a number is not the issue. The issue is the number itself.

1 in 19 million? That's pretty convincing to us both, isn't it? But is 1 in 1000? I don't think so. So, where do we draw the line?

Darat

14th January 2006, 03:41 AM

...snip...

Even experts can get it wrong. How can we demand of our peers that they understand it?

...snip...

We can't and we don't and I don't see what that has to do with your OP.

...snip...

Darat

14th January 2006, 03:50 AM

...snip...

Fingerprints have been considered evidence for, what, over 100 years? You asked for an example of scientific evidence, aside from DNA. I gave it to you.

I suggest you go and do some research - this is not quite the case, fingerprints have been used without much scientific investigation or challenge into many of the basic assumptions - especially the human judgment factor for a long time. That is why there is growing concerns about fingerprint evidence. Assumptions were made but if those assumptions should be proved to be false.

...snip...

That, when we introduce numbers as a probability of guilt, then we have to draw the line somewhere. We have a number, "1 in 19 million", that indicates guilt. What about 1 in 1 million? Could work, too. 1 in 1000? Dodgy.

That is not how it works in the UK. The prosecution introduces the evidence and for example one piece of evidence may be "there is only a 1 in 1000 chance that the hair fibres didn't come from his jumper", that is part of the case the prosecution has built.

It is then up the jury to decide what weight they place on the individual elements of the prosecution case. A judge may have directed them about some legal aspect but in the end the jury make the decision. (Often a judge will spend some time explaining to a jury what legally "beyond reasonable doubt" may mean in a particular case.)

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 04:01 AM

We can't and we don't and I don't see what that has to do with your OP.

...snip...

If people are so bad at judging probabilities, we run into problems when we attach numbers to guilt.

I suggest you go and do some research - this is not quite the case, fingerprints have been used without much scientific investigation or challenge into many of the basic assumptions - especially the human judgment factor for a long time. That is why there is growing concerns about fingerprint evidence. Assumptions were made but if those assumptions should be proved to be false.

Fingerprints are treated exactly the same way DNA evidence is: It is used as a way of drastically reducing the number of suspects.

I'm not saying that each fingerprint is unique. I can also easily imagine that there are two people with the same DNA (or very close).

That is not how it works in the UK. The prosecution introduces the evidence and for example one piece of evidence may be "there is only a 1 in 1000 chance that the hair fibres didn't come from his jumper", that is part of the case the prosecution has built.

It is then up the jury to decide what weight they place on the individual elements of the prosecution case. A judge may have directed them about some legal aspect but in the end the jury make the decision. (Often a judge will spend some time explaining to a jury what legally "beyond reasonable doubt" may mean in a particular case.)

That's what I mean: Numbers are attached to evidence, thereby indicating how strong it is. 1 in 1000 is not as strong as 1 in 1000000.

I cannot imagine why a jury would weigh a 1 in 1000 piece of evidence stronger or just as strong as a 1 in 1000000 piece.

Darat

14th January 2006, 04:15 AM

If people are so bad at judging probabilities, we run into problems when we attach numbers to guilt.

Yep but that is what many of our legal systems have evolved with. However since it is not the "numbers" that determine guilt then it is actually a moot point.

Fingerprints are treated exactly the same way DNA evidence is: It is used as a way of drastically reducing the number of suspects.

Yep but it can't be claimed to have the scientific footings most people have assume it to have. I was surprised last year when I started reading up on it. It is error prone and no one knows what that level of error is!

I'm not saying that each fingerprint is unique. I can also easily imagine that there are two people with the same DNA (or very close).

It's not about the fingerprints being unique it's about how the evidence is presented (and of course the exerts who make the determinations).

That's what I mean: Numbers are attached to evidence, thereby indicating how strong it is. 1 in 1000 is not as strong as 1 in 1000000.

I cannot imagine why a jury would weigh a 1 in 1000 piece of evidence stronger or just as strong as a 1 in 1000000 piece.

This is going circular.

The prosecution or the defence introduce a certain piece of evidence, they use an expert witness to explain what the significance of that evidence is, they make their case, the judge sums the case up he directs the jury in their legal obligations and about any points of law that may need to be made clear, the jury sit in a room and discuss the matter. The jury makes a decision.

So if a defender or prosecutor has a piece of evidence using a piece of evidence that they can find an expert that will say "1 in a 1000" they may decide to make that part of their case either to remove doubt or to add doubt.

I still suspect I am missing what your point is.

Is it that we should set standards for what evidence can be introduced?

Darat

14th January 2006, 04:20 AM

If people are so bad at judging probabilities, we run into problems when we attach numbers to guilt.

...snip...

That's what I mean: Numbers are attached to evidence, thereby indicating how strong it is. 1 in 1000 is not as strong as 1 in 1000000.

I cannot imagine why a jury would weigh a 1 in 1000 piece of evidence stronger or just as strong as a 1 in 1000000 piece.

To expand a bit more on this.

Some appeals have been successful in the UK recently because the expert witness was found to have over-emphasised the statistical importance of the number of cot deaths in a family. So instead of saying the odds were 1 in a 1000 he was saying something like 1 in million, this was considered by the appeal court to have likely been a significant part of or at least contributed to a jury's decision to come back with a guilty verdict. (See: http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/)

(ETA)http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/why.html

...snip...

Faced with no motive, no aggressive act and no cause of death, the speculation must be that 10 members of the jury who convicted were swayed by the sheer prejudice of the statistic cited by Professor Meadow - that two cot deaths are a 73 million to one chance. He is not even a statistician.

...snip...

The consensus is that, backed by five eminent specialist professors, the Defence won the medical arguments and the jury's verdict astonished everyone present. The speculation is that the jury did not understand the medical evidence and took soundbites, reaching a majority decision on the disbelief that "lightning could strike twice" - plus the damning statistics from Professor Meadow, which are universally refuted even by the authors of the report from which the purports were made.

...snip...

Statistics vary according to source but the loss of two babies is more common than supposed - even two cot deaths. Cot deaths are those with no obvious cause and no unusual features but contrary to reports Sally and Steve have never claimed two cot deaths - indeed Christopher was certified as "respiratory infection". The figures from the Care of Next Infant charity (CONI) are one cot death in every 8,500, but after one cot death the risk of a second actually increases to one in 200. The formula 1:73 million (five times smaller than the chance of winning the lottery) is dangerous nonsense. At least, it was dangerous to Sally and will be for every grieving mother hereafter when, folllowing a double death, it is transposed as the chance of a mother telling the truth being 1:73 million.

14th January 2006, 04:52 AM

You said

But sometimes, all we have is DNA. You have to address that

Do you understand that much? Good.

I said

I am going to say this slowly...

If all, ALL, that you have is DNA how, in the absence of other evidence, would you ever associate it with a specific human being?

How can you have DNA and nothing else, no other evidence?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:03 AM

Yep but that is what many of our legal systems have evolved with. However since it is not the "numbers" that determine guilt then it is actually a moot point.

To a certain extent, it is the numbers that determine guilt. The jury decides based at least in part on those numbers.

I don't think a jury would ignore a 1 in 19 million piece of evidence, in favor of a 1 in 1000.

Yep but it can't be claimed to have the scientific footings most people have assume it to have. I was surprised last year when I started reading up on it. It is error prone and no one knows what that level of error is!

It doesn't matter what actual scientific footing it has (that's a different issue). What matters is what value we attach to it.

It's not about the fingerprints being unique it's about how the evidence is presented (and of course the exerts who make the determinations).

It's very much about the fingerprints being so "unique" that they can't justifiably belong to someone else.

This is going circular.

The prosecution or the defence introduce a certain piece of evidence, they use an expert witness to explain what the significance of that evidence is, they make their case, the judge sums the case up he directs the jury in their legal obligations and about any points of law that may need to be made clear, the jury sit in a room and discuss the matter. The jury makes a decision.

So if a defender or prosecutor has a piece of evidence using a piece of evidence that they can find an expert that will say "1 in a 1000" they may decide to make that part of their case either to remove doubt or to add doubt.

Agreed.

I still suspect I am missing what your point is.

That we have to draw the line somewhere. 1 in 1000 is not as strong as 1 in 19 million. I'm asking: Where do we draw it?

Is it that we should set standards for what evidence can be introduced?

No. But that's an interesting discussion on its own.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:05 AM

How can you have DNA and nothing else, no other evidence?

I don't see why you can't have just DNA as evidence.

What's the problem?

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:07 AM

...snip...

How can you have DNA and nothing else, no other evidence?

Just on that point Ed - in the UK the police are allowed (I protested it but hey I'm only one voice) to keep DNA samples taken from people who haven't been found guilty of any crime or even cautioned.

So in the UK it would be possible to be a totally innocent person and have the police have no other evidence bar DNA and be linked to a crime

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:11 AM

...snip...

It's very much about the fingerprints being so "unique" that they can't justifiably belong to someone else.

No - I'll try and find the link to the book I read about it. That is not what fingerprint evidence is really based on - it's based on the assumption that a lifted fingerprint can only be identified to belong to one person, that's quite a different point.

That we have to draw the line somewhere. 1 in 1000 is not as strong as 1 in 19 million. I'm asking: Where do we draw it?

...snip...

Are you asking as regards to what individuals on a jury should consider or what evidence a court should allow in the is first place?

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:14 AM

I don't see why you can't have just DNA as evidence.

What's the problem?

Ignoring my post on this matter as it stands in the UK for one moment.

Consider:

A crime has happened
The police find DNA evidence at the site of the crime
The police find no other evidence
Therefore the police cannot link that evidence to someone.

(Unless they have the DNA of everyone on file :mad )

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:16 AM

Just on that point Ed - in the UK the police are allowed (I protested it but hey I'm only one voice) to keep DNA samples taken from people who haven't been found guilty of any crime or even cautioned.

So in the UK it would be possible to be a totally innocent person and have the police have no other evidence bar DNA and be linked to a crime
Here, too.

14th January 2006, 05:17 AM

I don't see why you can't have just DNA as evidence.

What's the problem?

OK. I found some DNA. Murder let's say.

Whose is it?

(we'll do this in little steps so you can follow)

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:18 AM

No - I'll try and find the link to the book I read about it. That is not what fingerprint evidence is really based on - it's based on the assumption that a lifted fingerprint can only be identified to belong to one person, that's quite a different point.

Well, if you want to put it that way...

Are you asking as regards to what individuals on a jury should consider or what evidence a court should allow in the is first place?

No. I'm asking where they draw the line, wrt how much weight the evidence has, numeric-wise.

14th January 2006, 05:19 AM

Ignoring my post on this matter as it stands in the UK for one moment.

Consider:

A crime has happened
The police find DNA evidence at the site of the crime
The police find no other evidence
Therefore the police cannot link that evidence to someone.

(Unless they have the DNA of everyone on file :mad )

What Darat said. My post seems to have gotten lost.

Naked DNA.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:20 AM

OK. I found some DNA. Murder let's say.

Whose is it?

(we'll do this in little steps so you can follow)

Read Darat's post. They can look it up in the database.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:22 AM

They can also come across the matching DNA if the guilty one commits a crime later on.

Or ask the neighborhood (or whatever) to have their DNA sampled.

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:26 AM

Yes Claus but I bet (metaphorically I don't bet - it's a sin) in the real world you can't find a case where there was not any other evidence presented in a court apart from that a crime had occurred and there was some matching DNA found!

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 05:29 AM

Yes Claus but I bet (metaphorically I don't bet - it's a sin)

I thought you didn't believe in sin? :)

in the real world you can't find a case where there was not any other evidence presented in a court apart from that a crime had occurred and there was some matching DNA found!

Well, an accused suspect would be nice....

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:31 AM

Well, if you want to put it that way...

No. I'm asking where they draw the line, wrt how much weight the evidence has, numeric-wise.

It is in the UK system left up to the jury to decide that. Prosecutors and defenders may argue that a certain piece of evidence should be given more weight then something else (or less) but in the end it is left to the judgement of the jury.

Now there is another process that happens and that is certain evidence or types of evidence may be challenged in later appeals and be found by the appeal court to not be reliable. Then it would unlikely that any good judge in future would allow such evidence into their court.

There is a whole system setup in the UK for how courts come to their determination on what can be submitted as evidence or not. And I assume the same is true for most countries that have a well established and proficient justice system. Perhaps one of our "legal" minded bods can explain it with some actual references else it will take me some time to find references that will support my claim about these systems.

14th January 2006, 05:39 AM

Read Darat's post. They can look it up in the database.

We don't have a comprehensive one.

Wrong.

14th January 2006, 05:40 AM

They can also come across the matching DNA if the guilty one commits a crime later on.

Or ask the neighborhood (or whatever) to have their DNA sampled.

They tell you, rightly, to go jump off a bridge.

Wrong

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:41 AM

We don't have a comprehensive one.

Wrong.

Well not that they've told you about.... ;)

Darat

14th January 2006, 05:45 AM

They tell you, rightly, to go jump off a bridge.

Wrong

Actually Ed I'd say this probably wouldn't happen depending on the crime. In a few of the very high profile child murders or serious assaults police have requested that people in a local area allow their DNA to be tested. And I think not surprisingly many come forward. This is not so much that the police hope to catch the actual perpetrator via the testing but it means they can eliminate a lot of people from their investigations.

I think many people in a community are only to willing to co-operate in this way. One of the objections made about the new national DNA register here was the fact that it might prevent people from being so co-operative in the future if the police then kept their DNA on file.

14th January 2006, 05:58 AM

Actually Ed I'd say this probably wouldn't happen depending on the crime. In a few of the very high profile child murders or serious assaults police have requested that people in a local area allow their DNA to be tested. And I think not surprisingly many come forward. This is not so much that the police hope to catch the actual perpetrator via the testing but it means they can eliminate a lot of people from their investigations.

I think many people in a community are only to willing to co-operate in this way. One of the objections made about the new national DNA register here was the fact that it might prevent people from being so co-operative in the future if the police then kept their DNA on file.

Perhaps but there is no obligation to provide that information. In this country it would be a violation of the fifth amendment. To get such information law enforcement would have to provide evidence as to why it is important vis a vis that individual. The point is that Claus is simply wrong: DNA on it's own is useless.

webfusion

14th January 2006, 05:59 AM

CF, do you remember the OJ Simpson trial? There was enough DNA evidence produced to sink a battleship (as well as a myriad of other connecting forensic evidence).
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/evidence/

Yet, the jury was told "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"
(The glove in question being a tight-fitting single glove found behind Cato Kaelin's room near the air conditioning unit that OJ bumped his head on while he scurried around the back of his house after the murders. The matching mate of that glove was found at Nicole's. It was brought out in the trial that OJ normally wore tight-fitting gloves of the same make as the one found by the detective -- even a videotape showing OJ wearing the exact same tight-fitting gloves was shown to the jury!!!).

DNA is useful, to the extent a jury places it in context, and to the extent that a District Attorney is prepared to use the results to FREE people who were wrongly convicted based on evidence other than DNA ---
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/01/14/303930.html
(Breaking News -- By MITCH STACY, Associated Press Writer)
TAMPA, Fla. - A 45-year-old who has spent more than half his life in prison for armed robbery and rape will be freed after new DNA evidence created "significant doubt" about his guilt, prosecutors said Friday.
Alan Crotzer's 1982 convictions and 130-year prison sentence are to be vacated.

That, and the fact the guys who confessed to the crimes have already indicated Crotzer wasn't a part of it. So, for this instance, I would define "significant doubt" as being 100% ---

Next case.

Darat

14th January 2006, 06:04 AM

Perhaps but there is no obligation to provide that information. In this country it would be a violation of the fifth amendment. To get such information law enforcement would have to provide evidence as to why it is important vis a vis that individual.

...snip...

It's an aside but are you saying that it would be a violation for the police to ask people to come forward to be tested?

14th January 2006, 06:13 AM

Well not that they've told you about.... ;)

Try using it in court. I think that there have been recent cases where while illeagally obtained evidence was not actually used in court it was used to get other legal evidence that was used to convict. The whole thing was thrown out. So, you can't cut those corners.

14th January 2006, 06:14 AM

It's an aside but are you saying that it would be a violation for the police to ask people to come forward to be tested?

ask, no. Demand, yes. To demand they would need evidence. QED.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 06:45 AM

Perhaps but there is no obligation to provide that information. In this country it would be a violation of the fifth amendment. To get such information law enforcement would have to provide evidence as to why it is important vis a vis that individual. The point is that Claus is simply wrong: DNA on it's own is useless.

Not in Denmark, not in the UK. I suspect in other countries as well.

So, DNA on it's own is not useless.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 06:50 AM

CF, do you remember the OJ Simpson trial?

I'm trying very hard not to. :)

There was enough DNA evidence produced to sink a battleship (as well as a myriad of other connecting forensic evidence).
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/evidence/

Yet, the jury was told "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"
(The glove in question being a tight-fitting single glove found behind Cato Kaelin's room near the air conditioning unit that OJ bumped his head on while he scurried around the back of his house after the murders. The matching mate of that glove was found at Nicole's. It was brought out in the trial that OJ normally wore tight-fitting gloves of the same make as the one found by the detective -- even a videotape showing OJ wearing the exact same tight-fitting gloves was shown to the jury!!!).

Letting OJ try the glove is equivalent to letting Uri Geller handle the spoons before an experiment.

14th January 2006, 06:54 AM

Not in Denmark, not in the UK. I suspect in other countries as well.

So, DNA on it's own is not useless.

Your honesty is getting problematic...

Originally Posted by Ed http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1378270#post1378270):
So, what is it in Denmark?

I told you: I am not comparing countries.

Are we opening up Denmark now? Can we discuss how scientific data is used by juries?

Darat

14th January 2006, 07:00 AM

ask, no. Demand, yes. To demand they would need evidence. QED.

OK - so it is the same as the UK - I thought it would be.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 07:08 AM

Are we opening up Denmark now? Can we discuss how scientific data is used by juries?

I'm not comparing countries. Just because you don't have X in the US doesn't make X impossible.

Do you acknowledge that with such a database DNA can be used on its own?

14th January 2006, 07:10 AM

I'm not comparing countries. Just because you don't have X in the US doesn't make X impossible.

Do you acknowledge that with such a database DNA can be used on its own?

Good god you can waffle. And, no. That would be insufficient for a conviction in the US.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 07:19 AM

Good god you can waffle. And, no. That would be insufficient for a conviction in the US.

I thought we weren't comparing countries?

14th January 2006, 07:23 AM

I thought we weren't comparing countries?

You moved the goalposts...

So, about probabilities in Denmark... what percentage serves as a standard?

And, in Denmark, would just DNA be sufficient? Or are you ...shudder... wrong?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 07:34 AM

You moved the goalposts...

No, I did not move the goal posts.

Regardless of what legal obstacles we have in our respective countries, could you use such DNA in a database to find a criminal?

So, about probabilities in Denmark... what percentage serves as a standard?

And, in Denmark, would just DNA be sufficient? Or are you ...shudder... wrong?

No idea.

14th January 2006, 07:50 AM

No, I did not move the goal posts.

Regardless of what legal obstacles we have in our respective countries, could you use such DNA in a database to find a criminal?

No.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 07:59 AM

Why not?

Darat

14th January 2006, 08:03 AM

No.

Again this seems an aside but why would in principle a DNA database be different from a fingerprint database?

14th January 2006, 08:09 AM

Why not?

Your turn.

What are standards of evidence in Denmark?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 08:14 AM

Your turn.

What are standards of evidence in Denmark?
Completely irrelevant.

Why couldn''t you use such DNA in a database to find a criminal?

14th January 2006, 08:21 AM

Again this seems an aside but why would in principle a DNA database be different from a fingerprint database?

I think that this is part of evolving law. Remember fingerprints are sorta an old thing and have been collected for various purposes for ages. DNA is somehow more "intrusive" and I think that there is more concern today about the government collecting dossiers on people than there was in the past. In principle, I don't personally see a difference. In fact collecting a sample at birth might actually be a good idea (just as every child, as far as I can judge, is footprinted at birth.

A problem comes up because of potential future uses of the data. Suppose there is a "crime" profile that accurately predicts one's propensity to do bad things? What is done with that information? Also, I have no doubt that the propensity of people to come down with various disorders might be seriously misused. Treatment for "one's own good" doncha know. I recall a UK story about temperature controlling spigots and the proposal that Inspectors would actually come into a home to make sure that they are properly installed. Don't know where that went but there is no end to how much a socially concious government might want to "help", strictly for your own good. I note the thread on freedom of speech in Canada where some made elequent cases for speech restrictions concerning a particularly loved class. There is no end to the degree that governments will "help" and the people that will support it. DNA has particularly obnoxious potenial in that area.

On a different note, my DNA contains the plans for moi. As such it is confidential, a form of intellectual/biological property. It is mine, not yours or the governments.

14th January 2006, 08:22 AM

Completely irrelevant.

Why couldn''t you use such DNA in a database to find a criminal?

Claus, your entire thesis is completely irrelevant. Get with the program.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 08:40 AM

I think that this is part of evolving law. Remember fingerprints are sorta an old thing and have been collected for various purposes for ages. DNA is somehow more "intrusive" and I think that there is more concern today about the government collecting dossiers on people than there was in the past. In principle, I don't personally see a difference. In fact collecting a sample at birth might actually be a good idea (just as every child, as far as I can judge, is footprinted at birth.

A problem comes up because of potential future uses of the data. Suppose there is a "crime" profile that accurately predicts one's propensity to do bad things? What is done with that information? Also, I have no doubt that the propensity of people to come down with various disorders might be seriously misused. Treatment for "one's own good" doncha know. I recall a UK story about temperature controlling spigots and the proposal that Inspectors would actually come into a home to make sure that they are properly installed. Don't know where that went but there is no end to how much a socially concious government might want to "help", strictly for your own good. I note the thread on freedom of speech in Canada where some made elequent cases for speech restrictions concerning a particularly loved class. There is no end to the degree that governments will "help" and the people that will support it. DNA has particularly obnoxious potenial in that area.

On a different note, my DNA contains the plans for moi. As such it is confidential, a form of intellectual/biological property. It is mine, not yours or the governments.

This is a political issue. We are talking about whether or not such a database would locate criminals. In principle.

Skeptic

14th January 2006, 12:36 PM

Being a convicted rapist prior to this crime is not evidence he did this crime.[

Of course it is; it makes it much more likely that it was him this time as well, since we know that convicted rapists are far more likely to rape again than the general population.

It's an open-and-shut case, Claus. His DNA AND his previous rape conviction AND his knowledge of the victim AND his opportunity to kill her AND his pubic hair on her AND his knife's stabs on her AND his DNA matching the semen were found on her.

I think we've got something there, Claus. I think that proves he killed her. I mean, just how much more "beyond reasonable doubt" can you expect a murder case to be?

webfusion

14th January 2006, 12:59 PM

CFL -- "Or ask the neighborhood (or whatever) to have their DNA sampled."

Ask? I'd refuse. Same as I'd refuse to allow a police officer to search my car or person during a routine traffic stop.

I carry a card in my wallet -- it says:
"I do not consent to any search [of my person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, home, blood, etc.]
I do not consent to this contact and do not want to answer any questions.
If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone)"

I have it printed on a card, just like the police have their Miranda Warning printed on a card ---- Law Enforcement agents need to provide "probable cause" for any contact with me, and certainly they need a warrant for any searches. Show cause, or go away.

The concept of "data mining" by searching or otherwise violating everyone's personal space is inconsistent with the US Constitution, clearly and without ambiguity.
Yep. Here ya go, in plain English:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:02 PM

Of course it is; it makes it much more likely that it was him this time as well, since we know that convicted rapists are far more likely to rape again than the general population.

It's an open-and-shut case, Claus. His DNA AND his previous rape conviction AND his knowledge of the victim AND his opportunity to kill her AND his pubic hair on her AND his knife's stabs on her AND his DNA matching the semen were found on her.

I think we've got something there, Claus. I think that proves he killed her. I mean, just how much more "beyond reasonable doubt" can you expect a murder case to be?

You think that previous convictions count as evidence in new cases?

Evidence? Really?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:04 PM

Ask? I'd refuse. Same as I'd refuse to allow a police officer to search my car or person during a routine traffic stop.

I carry a card in my wallet -- it says:
"I do not consent to any search [of my person, baggage, purse, luggage, vehicle, home, blood, etc.]
I do not consent to this contact and do not want to answer any questions.
If I am not under arrest, I would like to go now (or be left alone)"

I have it printed on a card, just like the police have their Miranda Warning printed on a card ---- Law Enforcement agents need to provide "probable cause" for any contact with me, and certainly they need a warrant for any searches. Show cause, or go away.

The concept of "data mining" by searching or otherwise violating everyone's personal space is inconsistent with the US Constitution, clearly and without ambiguity.
Yep. Here ya go, in plain English:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Good for you.

Do you think it is OK that the police should perhaps take a closer look at you, if you refuse to provide a DNA example or a fingerprint?

Manny

14th January 2006, 01:05 PM

For the record, in the United States it is not usually admissible evidence, but it's absolutely evidence. Particularly when the crime has some unusual signature one of the very first things police do when looking for suspects is check their records to see who has that signature.

webfusion

14th January 2006, 01:09 PM

Do you think it is OK that the police should perhaps take a closer look at you, if you refuse to provide a DNA example or a fingerprint?

That's an insane interpretation of the Fourth Amendment -- I refuse to allow you to violate the Constitution, and you use that refusal itself as "reasonable cause" to go ahead and (obtain a warrant for a) search? Ugh.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:15 PM

That's an insane interpretation of the Fourth Amendment -- I refuse to allow you to violate the Constitution, and you use that refusal itself as "reasonable cause" to go ahead and (obtain a warrant for a) search? Ugh.

Perhaps you can explain to me how you expect the police to conduct an investigation of a possible suspect, if the person in question can simply deny the police such options?

Skeptic

14th January 2006, 01:18 PM

Good for you.

Do you think it is OK that the police should perhaps take a closer look at you, if you refuse to provide a DNA example or a fingerprint?

He might as well. What has he got to lose?

After all, even if they find the dead body with the knife and gun and his DNA samples and his confession written in his blood in webfusion's cellar due to such a search, you'll probably protest that this is not necessarily enough evidence to convict webfusion beyond a reasonable doubt...

Your standard of reasonable doubt, Larsen, is such that nobody could ever be convicted of any crime. I fail to see why, in that case, do you think one should have a criminal justice system at all.

P.S.

I've got to ask. You have once written in this forum that if you see an armed security guard on a plane, you'd kill him, "no questions asked". Why do you consider the mere fact of having a gun on a plane--with permission--enough evidence for you to kill the man...

...while being an ex-rapist, with motive and opportunity, and knowledge of the victim, and the murder weapon, and the pubic hair found on the body, and the DNA found in the semen is still, somehow, not enough evidence to conclude somebody is a murderer?

Thims makes no sense.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:21 PM

He might as well. What has he got to lose?

After all, even if they find the dead body with the knife and gun and his DNA samples and his confession written in his blood in webfusion's cellar due to such a search, you'll probably protest that this is not necessarily enough evidence to convict webfusion beyond a reasonable doubt...

Your standard of reasonable doubt, Larsen, is such that nobody could ever be convicted of any crime. I fail to see why, in that case, do you think one should have a criminal justice system at all.

You think that previous convictions count as evidence in new cases?

Skeptic

14th January 2006, 01:25 PM

Perhaps you can explain to me how you expect the police to conduct an investigation of a possible suspect, if the person in question can simply deny the police such options?

By going to a judge and asking for a search warrant, for starters.

Skeptic

14th January 2006, 01:26 PM

You think that previous convictions count as evidence in new cases?

They are not ADMISSIBLE evidence (usually); but sure, they are EVIDENCE. Now, do you know what the difference between the two is?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:27 PM

They are not ADMISSIBLE evidence (usually); but sure, they are EVIDENCE. Now, do you know what the difference between the two is?
Of course. Which means you can't use that kind of evidence in a courtroom. Which means your point is invalid.

Kerberos

14th January 2006, 01:33 PM

Who knows. You don't have juries, do you?
We have, but we use them less and they have less power than in the US, I honestly don't know the details.

Manny

14th January 2006, 01:34 PM

Of course. Which means you can't use that kind of evidence in a courtroom. Which means your point is invalid.We can't. In other places one can. Are you familiar with the European Commission of Human Rights decision in X v. Denmark (1965) 8 Yearbook 370?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 01:44 PM

We can't. In other places one can. Are you familiar with the European Commission of Human Rights decision in X v. Denmark (1965) 8 Yearbook 370?
I am sure you are dying to tell me.

14th January 2006, 01:57 PM

So, in Denmark evidentially, one does what the police wish or else.

Good system.

Manny

14th January 2006, 02:00 PM

I am sure you are dying to tell me.Actually, no. I'm enjoying you make yourself look stupid far to much to offer any more factual correction. Do your own research.

LeFevre

14th January 2006, 02:01 PM

So, in Denmark evidentially, one does what the police wish or else.

Good system.

Same here unless you want a stick to the face, or a face full of pepper spray, or a bullet.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 02:17 PM

So, in Denmark evidentially, one does what the police wish or else.

Good system.

What on Earth possessed you to come to that conclusion??

webfusion

14th January 2006, 02:21 PM

Perhaps you can explain to me how you expect the police to conduct an investigation of a possible suspect, if the person in question can simply deny the police such options?

Not only can I deny any unreasonable warrantless search, I can also refuse to talk to any law enforcement agent (i.e.- compelled to testify against myself).
This point is not debatable, it is not open to some obscure interpretations, it is written in plain English as the Fourth & Fifth Amendments ( Bill of Rights ) of the US Constitution.

I have the right to remain silent.
I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Going around a neighborhood (or around the entire nation), and asking everyone for DNA, without any other supporting reason for obtaining it from all individuals, is unconstitutional.
I'll go one step further, and say that blanket drug testing is also problematic, but people are so freaked-out by the use of drugs (marijuana especially) that they are willing to forgo their Constitutional Rights, in an effort to "Fight the War on Drugs" --- watch out, next you'll be asked to submit your DNA to a national database in an effort to "Fight the War on Crime" and you will be asked to allow the NSA to monitor your phone calls in an effort to "Fight the War on Terror" and you'll be asked to allow the National Institute of Health (NIH) to test you for nicotine, in an effort to "Fight the War on Smoking" and before too long, you'll be asked to allow an RFID implant under your skin, as a means to "Fight the War on Illegal Immigration" and maybe, just maybe, you'll be asked to stop writing letters complaining about all this --- because your government is not interested anymore in hearing petitions for redress of grievances.

Darat

14th January 2006, 02:29 PM

...snip...

Going around a neighborhood (or around the entire nation), and asking everyone for DNA, without any other supporting reason for obtaining it from all individuals, is unconstitutional.

...snip...

As an aside again - what is it that would make such a voluntary request by the police unconstitutional? Mentioned it before but in the UK communities on the whole have been only too eager to help police here when they've made such requests.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 02:36 PM

Not only can I deny any unreasonable warrantless search, I can also refuse to talk to any law enforcement agent (i.e.- compelled to testify against myself).
This point is not debatable, it is not open to some obscure interpretations, it is written in plain English as the Fourth & Fifth Amendments ( Bill of Rights ) of the US Constitution.

I have the right to remain silent.
I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Going around a neighborhood (or around the entire nation), and asking everyone for DNA, without any other supporting reason for obtaining it from all individuals, is unconstitutional.
I'll go one step further, and say that blanket drug testing is also problematic, but people are so freaked-out by the use of drugs (marijuana especially) that they are willing to forgo their Constitutional Rights, in an effort to "Fight the War on Drugs" --- watch out, next you'll be asked to submit your DNA to a national database in an effort to "Fight the War on Crime" and you will be asked to allow the NSA to monitor your phone calls in an effort to "Fight the War on Terror" and you'll be asked to allow the National Institute of Health (NIH) to test you for nicotine, in an effort to "Fight the War on Smoking" and before too long, you'll be asked to allow an RFID implant under your skin, as a means to "Fight the War on Illegal Immigration" and maybe, just maybe, you'll be asked to stop writing letters complaining about all this --- because your government is not interested anymore in hearing petitions for redress of grievances.

I didn't ask you about your rights. I asked how you expect the police to conduct an investigation of a possible suspect, if the person in question can simply deny the police such options.

Skeptic

14th January 2006, 02:40 PM

Darat

14th January 2006, 02:41 PM

I didn't ask you about your rights. I asked how you expect the police to conduct an investigation of a possible suspect, if the person in question can simply deny the police such options.

Well normally the police ask people to co-operate with them, if they say no the police then have to consider have they reason to arrest a person. If they have no reason they are stuffed they can't do anything*, if they have a reason they can arrest a person take him into study and interrogate him according to the laws of the land*.

If you are asking in principle should police be able to interrogate or demand co-operation from citizens I think the answer is no. However like any "principle" the practical realties of the world may mean that that principles will be modified and even abandon for good pragmatic reasons.

*But to go down this route means to start discussing how different countries police forces are regulated.

webfusion

14th January 2006, 02:50 PM

Police can ask but I don't have to comply.
And my non-compliance cannot be used as a reason to apply for a warrant, or to use that denial of their request as a basis for proceeding to make the search on the grounds that my denial to search means that I must be hiding something!

I am free from application of such a circular logic. That is why there is a Constitution. It protects us ALL from being made suspect merely because we wish to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 02:50 PM

Again: BY GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT from a judge according to law.
Excellent.

Now, what? What has your posturing achieved?

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 02:56 PM

If you are asking in principle should police be able to interrogate or demand co-operation from citizens I think the answer is no. However like any "principle" the practical realties of the world may mean that that principles will be modified and even abandon for good pragmatic reasons.[/SIZE]

I'm not. But it does occur to me that it can serve as a kind of litmus test to see if people feel they have something to hide.

If there is no reason to think that people are suspects, the data should of course be destroyed later on, after the guilty guy has been found.

It's a question of "Hey, people: Help us out here, OK? There's a bad guy in your neighborhood, and we really, really want to nail him. And so do you, possibly even more than we do. Not just because he has done something really, really bad, but also because he could do it again. So, whaddayasay? Help us. After which, we'll leave you alone."

CFLarsen

14th January 2006, 02:58 PM

Police can ask but I don't have to comply.

Nobody is demanding that you do.

And my non-compliance cannot be used as a reason to apply for a warrant, or to use that denial of their request as a basis for proceeding to make the search on the grounds that my denial to search means that I must be hiding something!

I am free from application of such a circular logic. That is why there is a Constitution. It protects us ALL from being made suspect merely because we wish to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Okie dokie. How do you suggest the police conduct an investigation, if possible suspects can simply block any such investigations?

webfusion

14th January 2006, 05:52 PM

CF says: "Nobody is demanding that you do. (comply or agree to a search)"

The cops certainly do demand compliance, and refusal is taken to mean you have something to hide.

Try it sometime. I have. (and I still would, despite the consequences) ---

Routine traffic stop. No lane change signal.
Cop asks if he can look in the trunk, and if it's OK to pop his head inside the vehicle.
Declined.
OK, one field sobriety test coming right up.
Passed.
"Sit down over there."
A few more cars pull up. K9.
"This car is being impounded, unsafe motor vehicle (claimed on report that the blinker was inoperative), and you, sir, will be processed at the station for misdemeanor reckless endangerment."
Arrest.
Search of my pockets, and Search of vehicle proceeds, under the guise of "inventory" of my car, which is towed (and the tow charged to me), and the misdemeanor charge results in fingerprinting, and ROR for a court date. Total time from being stopped for lane change without signal, to release from central processing (jail) - 9 hours.
Then, I ended up missing work for the court appearances (two sessions), had to pay a lawyer, had to pay the tow, had to pay for a mechanic to verify the blinker/brakes are functional (the cops had merely pulled the wires out of their sockets in the trunk to back their claims of inoperative signal), and had to pay for the original 'failure to signal' ticket (which the judge agreed to) --

And I was grateful that on that particular evening, the cops had not decided to plant a bit of dope in the car for the K9 to "find" ... they were satisfied with the hassle they already caused me and left it at that.

CFLarsen, you asked a silly question.
Cops investigate and follow things to wherever they want, no matter what the 'suspect' wishes. How do you think the entire "Miranda Warning" came about?
There is virtually no line, CFL. It is only drawn in the sand.

Skeptic

14th January 2006, 11:33 PM

Excellent.

Now, what? What has your posturing achieved?

Proved you wrong?

The problem with your logic is this: you think the police can search you "voluntarily", but if you refuse, this should raise suspicion against you and justifies the police in "looking closer at you". What this means is that refusing to be searched voluntarily, in itself, justifies the police in getting a warrant (or whatever) to search you without your permission anyway.

So in effect your "reasonable" policy is that the police can search anybody at any time they feel like it, with the only difference is whether it is called a "voluntary search" or a "non-voluntary search". This is the "if they hadn't done anything wrong, what are they afraid of?" logic used to justify all police states.

Kerberos

15th January 2006, 12:37 AM

That's an insane interpretation of the Fourth Amendment -- I refuse to allow you to violate the Constitution, and you use that refusal itself as "reasonable cause" to go ahead and (obtain a warrant for a) search? Ugh.
There was a case like this in Denmark some years back. A truck driver had been near the scene of a crime (a rape/murder I think), but there was no further evidence against him, so the police asked him if they could test him which he refused. The police then tried to use his refusal to obtain a forced test. It didn't fly.

I do however think that refusing to be tested, does justify that the police looks closer than they might otherwise have, but it's not probable cause or admissible evidence.

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 12:52 AM

Proved you wrong?

Posturing may be proof in your book.

The problem with your logic is this: you think the police can search you "voluntarily", but if you refuse, this should raise suspicion against you and justifies the police in "looking closer at you". What this means is that refusing to be searched voluntarily, in itself, justifies the police in getting a warrant (or whatever) to search you without your permission anyway.

So in effect your "reasonable" policy is that the police can search anybody at any time they feel like it, with the only difference is whether it is called a "voluntary search" or a "non-voluntary search". This is the "if they hadn't done anything wrong, what are they afraid of?" logic used to justify all police states.

Your definition of a "police state" differs somewhat from the one in circulation. The police can, will, and should use this approach, but the funny part - the part that shows your definition is somewhat exaggerated - is that it happens only in the real big cases - the cases which everyone in the community wants solved. Sure, people may not care all that much about the next guy getting a speeding ticket, but if there's a child molester in the neighborhood, you can bet your bottom dollar that people want him caught as fast as possible.

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 01:05 AM

CF says: "Nobody is demanding that you do. (comply or agree to a search)"

The cops certainly do demand compliance, and refusal is taken to mean you have something to hide.

Wrong. That you might have something to hide.

CFLarsen, you asked a silly question.
Cops investigate and follow things to wherever they want, no matter what the 'suspect' wishes. How do you think the entire "Miranda Warning" came about?
There is virtually no line, CFL. It is only drawn in the sand.

There you go: Possible suspects cannot simply block any such investigations.

webfusion

15th January 2006, 06:55 AM

skeptic reviews the evidence:
The problem with your (CFL) logic is this: you think the police can search you "voluntarily", but if you refuse, this should raise suspicion against you and justifies the police in "looking closer at you". What this means is that refusing to be searched voluntarily, in itself, justifies the police in getting a warrant (or whatever) to search you without your permission anyway.

So in effect your "reasonable" policy is that the police can search anybody at any time they feel like it, with the only difference is whether it is called a "voluntary search" or a "non-voluntary search". This is the "if they hadn't done anything wrong, what are they afraid of?" logic used to justify all police states.

Exactly.
As happened to me.
It wasn't a really big case, it was the most minor infraction, yet it illustrated perfectly how the police consider themselves to be out there to search whoever they want and not a whole lot is gonna stop 'em!

In Baltimore, for instance, the cops were given orders to conduct street stops and searches whenever they felt like it -- under the guise of "war on drugs" or whatever --- and their official policy is stop and frisk
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013167.html

...tens of thousands of stops occurred last year, frequently accompanied by frisks of the detained individuals.

claimee

15th January 2006, 10:29 AM

CFLarsenI'm not talking about what kind of evidence is used in various countries. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1378245&postcount=28
EdDNA on it's own is useless. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1379957&postcount=169
CFLarsenNot in Denmark, not in the UK. I suspect in other countries as well. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1379993&postcount=174
EdWhat are standards of evidence in Denmark? http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1380120&postcount=186
CFLarsenCompletely irrelevant. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1380125&postcount=187

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 10:36 AM

claimee,

Do you have a point?

Mycroft

15th January 2006, 10:42 AM

claimee,

Do you have a point?

I think he does.

15th January 2006, 10:50 AM

People notice.

Skeptic

15th January 2006, 11:41 AM

I fail to see CFL's point. He seems to be suggesting that it is the right of the accused, in case of a DNA match between him and the blood on the victim's body, to have everybody on the planet tested to see if their DNA might match as well.

What's that? It violates the 4th amendment rights of millions of people. Oh, phui. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

And hey, who cares if he's the only one who had motive and opportunity, that they found the knife on him, that he has a previous history of violent crime, that he knew the victim? Unless one tests everybody else on the planet (or the country, or the city...) for the DNA, how can you prove it wasn't really some complete stranger 1,500 miles away who did it and that the DNA fitting is all purely a coincidence?

There's still, er, "reasonable doubt" he did it!

CFL seems to care nothing for violating the 4th amendment and privacy rights of untold millions of law-abiding innocent people, for the benefit of murderers and rapists.

Go figure.

T'ai Chi

15th January 2006, 11:48 AM

Kerberos

15th January 2006, 11:50 AM

I fail to see CFL's point. He seems to be suggesting that it is the right of the accused, in case of a DNA match between him and the blood on the victim's body, to have everybody on the planet tested to see if their DNA might match as well.

I think he's arguing from some sort of weird thesis which states that a match on a DNA (or blodtype) test which has a 0,2% chance of error, means there is a 0,2 % chance the guy is innocent or at least that this data is somehow meaningfull independently of any other data that exists in the case.

15th January 2006, 12:01 PM

The whole thing stems from a breathtaking ignorance of how the law works.

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 12:09 PM

The argument

0.2%? That means that, if you live in New York City (8.2 million), 16,400 share the same data. Or (at the time, perhaps 280 million Americans?), 560,000 people.

is a flawed argument from numbers, as those people may have not been in the same vacinity, had the same motives, had the same past, etc.

In other words, they might "share the same data" as far as a blood test or whatever, but they certainly might not "share the same data" as far as other data, which is also relevant.

But the argument is based on the blood test based on those who were in the same vicinity, had the same motives and had the same past.

If you dismiss this, because I haven't included whose grandmother's cousin's uncle **** in the woods a hundred years ago, how can you ever make any case at all?

Just what does it take to make a case?

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 12:13 PM

I think he's arguing from some sort of weird thesis which states that a match on a DNA (or blodtype) test which has a 0,2% chance of error, means there is a 0,2 % chance the guy is innocent or at least that this data is somehow meaningfull independently of any other data that exists in the case.

Nope. I am pointing to the data that the police usually use in cases like this.

webfusion

15th January 2006, 12:16 PM

15th January 2006, 12:53 PM

"Just what does it take to make a case?"

From the OP --
1 in 19 million means that there could have been about 15 persons in the US that could have killed Wanda McCoy.

And it so happens that Roger Keith Coleman was the ONLY one who actually did.

Case closed.

Of whom about 62% are >14 <60 years of age leaving about 9 people of whom a bit more than half are women leaving 4-5 people who might reasonably be in the "suspect" pool.

This thread jumped the shark on the OP.

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 12:55 PM

What percentages would people accept, then?

T'ai Chi

15th January 2006, 12:57 PM

But the argument is based on the blood test based on those who were in the same vicinity, had the same motives and had the same past.

You have not shown that. You merely offered populations of cities, and then multiplied those population numbers by .2%, to get X, and then said that there's X number of people that "share the same data".

You have not show that those X have the same motives, were in the same vacinity, had the same history, and etc., as the person in question.

Kerberos

15th January 2006, 12:59 PM

Nope. I am pointing to the data that the police usually use in cases like this.
One piece of the data. There is always at least some other relevant data. You cannot name a single case where no other data exists. Hell I'll setlle for a hypothetical case.

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 01:07 PM

Leif Roar

15th January 2006, 01:17 PM

What does it take to make a case?

As you have been told repeatedly that the jury finds the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. "Beyond reasonable doubt" has, by intention, not been specified as a hard limit. It is, in other words, up to the judgement of the jurors.

Mycroft

15th January 2006, 01:23 PM

But I think we can agree it is not beyond all doubt.

Leif Roar

15th January 2006, 01:24 PM

But I think we can agree it is not beyond all doubt.

Yes, but can we agree beyond all doubt that it's not beyond all doubt?

Skeptic

15th January 2006, 01:27 PM

But the argument is based on the blood test based on those who were in the same vicinity, had the same motives and had the same past.

Lots of people have "the same motives and the same past"? That's a new one.

Skeptic

15th January 2006, 01:29 PM

What does it take to make a case?

It depends on the circumstances. But, for starters, knowing the victim, having motive an opportunity, being caught with the murder weapon, and your pubic hairs being found on the victim is rather conclusive, even without any DNA.

T'ai Chi

15th January 2006, 01:32 PM

What does it take to make a case?

DNA, and other things that have already been mentioned ad nausem(sp?), like vacinity, history, motives, and on and on.

You merely offered populations of cities, and then multiplied those population numbers by .2%, to get X, and then said that there's X number of people that "share the same data".

You have not show that those X have the same motives, were in the same vacinity, had the same history, and etc., as the person in question. That is, you have not showed those X really "share the same data", only that they share a small amount of the data.

15th January 2006, 01:37 PM

One piece of the data. There is always at least some other relevant data. You cannot name a single case where no other data exists. Hell I'll setlle for a hypothetical case.

Proven and ignored.

CFLarsen

15th January 2006, 01:40 PM

As you have been told repeatedly that the jury finds the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. "Beyond reasonable doubt" has, by intention, not been specified as a hard limit. It is, in other words, up to the judgement of the jurors.

So, "1 in 19 million" means one thing in one case and another in another.

How is that justice?

Lots of people have "the same motives and the same past"? That's a new one.

How so?

It depends on the circumstances. But, for starters, knowing the victim, having motive an opportunity, being caught with the murder weapon, and your pubic hairs being found on the victim is rather conclusive, even without any DNA.

That is an open-and-shut case. We don't get too many of those.

Try dealing with real life.

Kerberos

15th January 2006, 01:52 PM

So, "1 in 19 million" means one thing in one case and another in another.

How is that justice?
Ok, I'm going to give this a try, it's probably futile but still.

Case 1:
A woman is raped and murdered in Washington DC, DNA testing finds a match with an error rate of 1 to 19 million. The suspect’s whereabouts at the time of the crime cannot be determined; he knows the victim and lives a few blocks away.

Case 2:
A woman is raped and murdered in Washington DC, DNA testing finds a match with an error rate of 1 to 19 million. The suspect’s whereabouts at the time of the crime cannot be determined; he does not know the victim and in Outer Mongolia.

And now for the 19 million dollar question: Do you think the evidence against these two people is equally strong? If not who are you more disposed to believe is guilty?

15th January 2006, 02:01 PM

I'll ask again, not being particularly hopeful of a direct answer, what happens in Denmark? Are people only convicted when there is 100% assurance, that is to say that there are no convictions?

Skeptic

15th January 2006, 02:02 PM

So, "1 in 19 million" means one thing in one case and another in another.

How is that justice?

Well, it's justice in the same way that "I saw the defendant walking with a gun" can mean one thing in one case (if the defendant is a man who had shortly before said "I'm going to get a gun and kill the bastard") in another in another (if the defendant is a soldier on an Army base who is heading towards training in the firing range as ordered by his superior officer).

It's justice in the same way that "he told me he will kill him" means one thing in one case (when the witness is an upright citizen with a reputation for honesty and no personal involvement in the case) and another in another (when the witness is a jailbird who copped a plea for reduced jailtime if he testifies against the defendant).

It's justice in the same way that "the coroner reported the victim has died on Nov. 10th" might matter a lot in one case (when the defendant claims he was drinking with him in the pub on the 11th) and not at all, or little, in another (when the defendant claims he never saw the victim after the 8th.)

Etc., etc., etc.

Actually, almost every concievable piece of evidence has varying importance in different cases, depending on--and not limited to--what other evidence exists for or againt the defendant, what his alibi is, what strategy the prosecutor and defense attorney pursue, and a zillion other things. That is one of the reasons we do not leave sentencing to a computer algorithm, but rather to twelve humans.

Same with DNA: It can matter a lot in some cases, and little in others (if, for example, if the defendant has a good explanation why his DNA was found on the victim's clothes--say, because the victim and him shared a room.) Why is this such a huge surprise to you?

If anything, the system you are suggesting--where every bit of evidence is assigned some "objective value" in a guilt-determining algorithm--that is certain to lead to grave injustice, by ignoring the all-important circumstances of the cases.