Death Penalty Article

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: OK, wow, now I'm starting to doubt myself. WTF, if switching is correct I don't know how many things I must have wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, switching is correct. Don't feel bad. Like I said, even most math professors get it wrong. But consider that if so few can get this very simple problem right, how endemic misuse of statistics is in more complex situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally caught my error like 10 minutes later. And then I realized that my initial statement holds no matter which answer is correct because there were a lot of elaborate explanations on both sides. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: OK, wow, now I'm starting to doubt myself. WTF, if switching is correct I don't know how many things I must have wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, switching is correct. Don't feel bad. Like I said, even most math professors get it wrong. But consider that if so few can get this very simple problem right, how endemic misuse of statistics is in more complex situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally caught my error like 10 minutes later. And then I realized that my initial statement holds no matter which answer is correct because there were a lot of elaborate explanations on both sides. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a toughie. I interviewed 20+ candidates for a job once (all with good degrees in science/maths). I gave them all the MH problem and asked for the answer and the reason. Only one got the right answer for the right reason.

All but two got the answer wrong.

chez

[David Sklansky]

I appreciate your comments. If "lingering doubt" means what you say, then it is is actually an new idea. And I don't think it would be as hard to implement as you fear.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i think this is asign of his increasing instability. not a joke but a serious comment. the fact that virtually every sentence is an an insult to rational argument is beside the point. The fact he feels the need to come out of the Science, Math, philosophy closet and put forward nonsense such as this as official 2 2 poker policy is staggering.

[/ QUOTE ]

2+2 is whatever its owners decide it is. Surely you can't deny that David has a solid background in probability theory. He came up with an interesting application for it, and used his own outlet to express it. So what?

Open your mind a little. Learning about how to apply probability theory to a wide range of complex problems can only improve your Poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the forum chosen to express the opinions I was commenting on. I have no problem with, and join in wholeheartedly with, discussions on these and other topics in the SM Philosophy forum, the appropriate place for them in DS's domain, imho.

And of course he can do what he wants here. But if support of the death penalty in any form becomes official 2+2 policy then I want, and will not have any, further part of it. My loss maybe but that will be it for me.

[roundhouse]

David,

You write very good poker books, but you are not cut out to write this kind of policy comment.

1) Your suggestion is for society to put an explicit price on human life (this is what your HP system is really doing). Whilst the logical minded 2+2ers will see sense in this it is an absolute political no goer. Ask yourself how likely any politician in any country is to answer questions like:
"What is worse, X murderers being set free or Y innocents wrongly executed?"
"What is worse, X of your country's soldiers being killed in battle, or Y innocent civilians from another country?"
(And it doesn't matter what numbers you substitute for X and Y.)

2) Even if you could agree a price of life and have it publically and politically accepted and somehow get this two tier conviction process to pass judicial muster you haven't solved the fundamental problem. If you have a death penalty you will kill innocent people. Those against the death penalty believe that even one innocent executed is one too many: HP=infinity if you like. Your policy suggestion is basically that America should kill slightly fewer innocent people. Why not just abolish the death penalty (some would say "join the civilised world") and have none?

3) You seem to think that there aren't those smart enough within the government machinery - and real think tanks for that matter - to consider these things. You are mistaken.

Best if you stick to the poker I think.

Couldn't agree more... what are you on about David?

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that even people of average intelligence know when there is almost zero chance of innocence (as long as he isn't being framed by the police) and can seperate that from cases where there is lingering doubt (eg probably Peterson or Westerfield). And most peopele would not mind that defendents with tiny doubt associated with their convictions, be spared, if they definitely get life in prison. The details of defining the criteria I left up to others. Perhaps the judge rather than the jury should make the call. Just because some of the posters here are too dumb to understand the notion of probability involving historic events, doesn't mean that most in the crimal justice system are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who does David consider to be "in the criminal justice system"? In most States, the only qualification for jury service is that you be 18, a citizen, and not a felon. Therefore, the juries making these decisions will often be comprised of at least some persons with much less than "average intelligence". And I'm David realizes, as a math genius, that there will occasionally be juries that comprised solely of persons of much less than "average intelligence." David makes a comment about letting the judge decide, but, as a lawyer, I can honestly say that you will occasionally have judges with much less than "average intelligence." So, even with David's plan, you still end up with the problem of innocent people being executed, because the decision-maker(s) cannot understand the standard and/or how to apply it.

Also, what about the situation where the crime is so offensive and charged (Scott Peterson, for example), that the decision-maker(s) understands the standard and how to apply it, but makes a decision based on emotion and/or politics?

The more interesting death penalty topic, and one that is more susceptible to using logical arguments as part of the discussion, would be to examine the effects of even having a death penalty in the first place. Does it serve as a deterrent? How expensive is it compared to life without parole?

[David Sklansky]

None of these arguments changes a simple fact. If you are going to allow the death penalty at all, it should only be for cases where the chance of innocence is miniscule. Miniscule being an even smaller chance than what is tolerated as the chance for innocence when deciding whether to convict.

I don't care about politics, the morality of the death sentence, the fact that implementation of the idea has logistical problems, or whatever. I just want people to see that the second sentence is true and that capitol punishment is one of those subjects where the subject of probability applies.

[Buccaneer]

[ QUOTE ]
In that case I think it is necessary to bring in the Horribleness Points Argument. The idea that there is a different risk versus reward ratio for death vs. life compared to innocence vs. guilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I am not glad to find out that 2+2 thinks that they can/should influence the judicial process in the country. First you would have to educate the RAGs (ragged ass masses) as to what risk vs. reward is and what a ratio is.

What position should 2+2 take in the abortion debate, how about the deficit, how about the drug war, terrorism, etc.

The "Horribleness Points Argument" - roflolpmgo

Lets stick to working on the Horribleness of Variance.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of people seemed to be getting tripped up by the Horrbleness points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in the bunch getting "tripped up" by the Horribleness Points. For instance, you assign 50 HPs to send a murderer back on to the streets, but 600 HPs to giving an innocent man the needle. But what if the murderer we wrongly set free kills another 15 innocent people? Then wouldn't that be a far greater mistake?

Murderers who are unlikely to be repeat offenders should be assigned fewer HPs than giving an innocent person the death penalty, but murderers who are likely to be repeat offenders should be given more HPs than those innocents.

As you point out, the actual numbers you assigned are arbitrary, but my point is that there would be a GREAT deal of variables to consider in order to come up with reasonable numbers to determine the probablilities that would be in society's best interests. I do not think you have considered all of them.

Otherwise, it's an interesting idea you propose. As an aside, I would enjoy one (and probably only one) off-topic article like this per month.