Jim Balter wrote:
> J Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > US District Court Judge Richard Posner wrote something like:
> >
> > Anything we do to increase the numbere of guilty
> > we convict will increase the number of innocent we convict.
> > Anything we do to increase the number of innocent we acquit
> > will increase the number of guilty we acquit.
> > Posner, Richard
> > Problems of Jurisprudence,
> > Harvard Press, 1993
>> If he wrote that then he's an idiot; it implies that, if the number of
> convictions is held constant, then the ratio of innocent to guilty
> among the convicted cannot be changed -- we might as well have a quota
> for the numnber of convictions, and pick who gets convicted randomly.
> That would certainly reduce the cost of the court system.
>> Anyone who would write such a thing is a nincompoop, and anyone who
> would quote it verges on being a nincompoop.
> Of course it isn't really nincompoopery at work here,
> but rather rationalizations by the mean-spirited for
> why we should do nothing about injustice.
>> --
> <J Q B>
He is stating that to increase the number of convictions - not
holding that number constant. Where did you get that idea.
If that gives you a new understanding, does that mean
you don't think Posner is a nincompoop (at least for that reason)
and that I don't verge on being one (at least for that reason)?
JKA
--
The fastest way to succeed is to
double your failure rate."
—Thomas J. Watson, Sr.
