I Does this defense lawyer's probability argument sound like BS?

swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
Either that, or the author is a typical "pop scientist" author that doesn't understand probability too well.

https://nautil.us/issue/4/the-unlikely/the-odds-of-innocence
 
Physics news on Phys.org
swampwiz said:
Either that, or the author is a typical "pop scientist" author that doesn't understand probability too well.

https://nautil.us/issue/4/the-unlikely/the-odds-of-innocence
What's wrong with it? This seems like an ok application of Bayes theorem.
The main problems with this kind of calculation are the difficulty of establishing the prior probability that someone is guilty, and the interpretation of the result. (What percentage was reasonable doubt again, your honour?)
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK, Dale and FactChecker
The general point seems sound to me, but I'd have a couple of objections;
1. General: most people don't have a good enough understanding of probability to properly evaluate the arguments.
2. Specific: I'm not happy with the initial assumption of guilt of 1/200000. That seems to assume he was randomly selected from the local population to be put on trial, or at least to have his DNA tested, but that isn't the case. He was a known sex offender, and therefore likely to be of interest as a suspect, and his DNA was already on the database and found to be a match. He was not a random choice.
 
  • Like
Likes swampwiz, pinball1970 and FactChecker
I would have to think about the defence's likelihood ratio argument. I have never seen a likelihood ratio interpreted as a probability. I think that may be an error. Or it may be using the term "likelihood" in a different context than I am used to.
 
mjc123 said:
Specific: I'm not happy with the initial assumption of guilt of 1/200000. That seems to assume he was randomly selected from the local population to be put on trial, or at least to have his DNA tested, but that isn't the case. He was a known sex offender, and therefore likely to be of interest as a suspect, and his DNA was already on the database and found to be a match. He was not a random choice.
I think that is a good point. Probably the beat approach would have been to start with the “random male” number but add “convicted sex offender” as an additional explicit piece of evidence.
 
FactChecker said:
I would have to think about the defence's likelihood ratio argument. I have never seen a likelihood ratio interpreted as a probability. I think that may be an error. Or it may be using the term "likelihood" in a different context than I am used to.
The likelihood ratio isn’t a probability because it can be greater than 1. It is the strength of the evidence. If you multiply the prior odds by the likelihood ratio then you get the posterior odds.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top