GirlChat #604573

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Your chances at jury in the US : pretty good.

Posted by jd420 on Monday, October 27 2014 at 10:47:15AM

Honestly, it's looking like an awesome option...

A couple different methodologies were employed. For our first method, we looked to an interesting fact... 1 percent of the US populace is a /b/tard at the chan-of-four.

Standard methods of computing net total chance were employed. The statistic was converted into the exclusionary form ("what is the chance that none of twelve units..."), and converted, as all probabilities should be, into a number between zero and one - specifically, .99.

It's rounding, but it's close.

The result? .9912 = .886349, to a number of decimals that a calculator older than your yf chooses to display. From this, we can draw a number of conclusions...

1. Your chances of getting away with literally any crime on the basis of "I did it for the lulz" is better than one-in-ten, and....

2. Your chances of getting away with what is obviously not a crime on the basis of "but teh loli/shota was so cute!" is signifigantly better than 1 in 10, as it is not just /b/, and /b/ is not just the chan-of-four.

So, for another methodology - in-house troops.

Calculating from Hall's 57%-or-so plethysmographic rating for "kinda hawt, yeah," created a probability which the archaic calculator couldn't even measure as "nonzero" after five steps... so, we went with a .4 occurance rate, somewhere around Person's '89 findings... on the vague basis that it's not that far from Hall's .32-ish and we've got extras & str8 allies. Oh, that, and I typed in ".6" into the calculator. Deal with it.

.612 = 0.0060

In other words, we only need partial in-house activation to have less than a 1% chance of conviction. Ever. A few str8 allies, and this gets even better. Best of all, you're not required to explain a "not guilty" verdict. You just have to give it and stick to it. How hard is that?

In short, I conclude that jury nullification advocacy is a very viable option. Our ample fifth column will probably try to distort the probabilities (or just cry really hard in the attempt to keep people from talking about it) - the last attempt I saw sought to redefine "epheberotic orientation" as lining up with "adrenarche" - but not only is the literature consistent (1/5th - 1/3rd primary, way more than that "exceeds contrast"), but we still have better than 1 in 10 with nothing more than a 1% presence of jaded, irreverent lulzmonkeys - which might be better chances than the plea bargain, between lifetime sentencing and unknown future ex post facto acts, not to mention "therapy" conditionality.

I find it a very viable strategy indeed. The jury system was created by a much more mathematically-literate people - it's actually kind of awesome.

I propose we can exploit that mathematical construction with increased education, advocacy, and utilization of the unilateral nature of noncompliance with prosecution built into it. If nothing else, we might be able to get the defense attorney to drag the kid up on the stand and ask "do you want this person to go to prison?"

Which is a pretty fair question. Even though, mathematically, it might actually drop the nonconviction rate... to a more just amount.

Nonetheless, the numbers suggest that jury nullification is oh-so-exploitable. 1% = 1 in 10.

We, on the other hand, are legion.


jd420





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?