White Men Don't Catcall, They Harass In Other Ways

[martybegan]

I compare it to the movie theater equivalent, where blacks are more likely to yell at the movie, and whites are more likely to whisper snide comments to their friends.

I also compare it to pot smoking between the two groups. Whites tend to toke inside, with all sorts of contraptions to hide the pot smoke. In black neighborhoods its puffed out on the stoop.

I equate it to a certain level of brazenness in the black community.

bHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
it's has dick to do with white vs. black neighborhoods....it's regional, besides the only way you've seen a black neighborhood is driving by very fast or on TV.

I've worked in East New York, I grew up in Flushing. I had to go once a week to a plumbing supply store in the heart of Bed-Stuy. I've been to bars in Alphabet city and other manhattan neighborhoods.

My black co-worker always joked about how paranoid white pot smokers were, and how quiet a white movie theater was. The only time they didn't toke up on the stoop was on T&T, (Tuesdays and Thursdays), the days cops did drug sweeps.

thanks' for proving my point..

What part of your point did I prove?

Who drives in manhattan?

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

 

[daws101]

Reasonably is subjective. There is no definitive measure of reasonable.

Funny, juries decide what is reasonable hundreds and thousands of times a day.

juries are wrong about 50% of the time..

Criminal juries are wrong 50% of the time??????

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

really? so the rate of jury misjudgments has gone down to zero in 7 years.
so much for your .I.Q .

 

[Asclepias]

Reasonably is subjective. There is no definitive measure of reasonable.

Funny, juries decide what is reasonable hundreds and thousands of times a day.

Juries also get over ruled on retrials and sometimes by the judge. Its subjective.

But they still determine reasonable doubt, and then the appeals courts do the same thing.

Stop deflecting. You arent smart enough to pull it off and me not notice. Reasonable is subject to interpretation. I may think its reasonable to slit someones throat for looking at me. Just because someone else thinks its unreasonable that doesnt make me incorrect.

reasonableness in the original case of a woman feeling threatened and responding with deadly force is a measurable quantity, and the way we do it is via trial by jury. in the case of your slitting someone else's throat for a look, 99.999% of juries would find that unreasonable, and convict your stupid ass.

and i will put my IQ and intellect up against yours any day of the week. Hell, I'll drink before I do it just to give you a fighting chance.

Sorry Maryt. Reasonable its not a measurable quantity. Its subjective like I said. In your example for legal purposes there must be a consensus. That doesn't mean its measurable. That simply means most or all must agree on it. Just because everyone else believed it was reasonable or unreasonable has no bearing on what someone else thought. When you can find an action that everyone believes has the same degree of reasonable or unreasonableness to it, let me know. You wouldnt be able to put your IQ and intellect up against mine. They dont make ladders that reach that far up.

 

[daws101]

bHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
it's has dick to do with white vs. black neighborhoods....it's regional, besides the only way you've seen a black neighborhood is driving by very fast or on TV.

I've worked in East New York, I grew up in Flushing. I had to go once a week to a plumbing supply store in the heart of Bed-Stuy. I've been to bars in Alphabet city and other manhattan neighborhoods.

My black co-worker always joked about how paranoid white pot smokers were, and how quiet a white movie theater was. The only time they didn't toke up on the stoop was on T&T, (Tuesdays and Thursdays), the days cops did drug sweeps.

thanks' for proving my point..

What part of your point did I prove?

Who drives in manhattan?

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

nothing to comprehend.. keep- backpedaling.!

 

[Asclepias]

Reasonably is subjective. There is no definitive measure of reasonable.

Funny, juries decide what is reasonable hundreds and thousands of times a day.

juries are wrong about 50% of the time..

Criminal juries are wrong 50% of the time??????

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

 

[daws101]

Funny, juries decide what is reasonable hundreds and thousands of times a day.

juries are wrong about 50% of the time..

Criminal juries are wrong 50% of the time??????

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

 

[martybegan]

juries are wrong about 50% of the time..

Criminal juries are wrong 50% of the time??????

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

Ah the dumb applauding the moronic.

As for deflection, I don't think it means what your think it means.

 

[martybegan]

I've worked in East New York, I grew up in Flushing. I had to go once a week to a plumbing supply store in the heart of Bed-Stuy. I've been to bars in Alphabet city and other manhattan neighborhoods.

My black co-worker always joked about how paranoid white pot smokers were, and how quiet a white movie theater was. The only time they didn't toke up on the stoop was on T&T, (Tuesdays and Thursdays), the days cops did drug sweeps.

thanks' for proving my point..

What part of your point did I prove?

Who drives in manhattan?

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

nothing to comprehend.. keep- backpedaling.!

Still not getting it, you are a fucking oxygen thief.

 

[Asclepias]

Criminal juries are wrong 50% of the time??????

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

Ah the dumb applauding the moronic.

As for deflection, I don't think it means what your think it means.

No one applauded you.

As for deflection, I wouldnt admit to it either. Evidently your pride is on the line.

 

[daws101]

Criminal juries are wrong 50% of the time??????

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

Ah the dumb applauding the moronic.

As for deflection, I don't think it means what your think it means.

it's obvious you don't..btw your response is a prime example if it.

 

[Asclepias]

thanks' for proving my point..

What part of your point did I prove?

Who drives in manhattan?

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

nothing to comprehend.. keep- backpedaling.!

Still not getting it, you are a fucking oxygen thief.

Anger is a sure sign of frustration. Its cute you think you have a high IQ.

 

[daws101]

thanks' for proving my point..

What part of your point did I prove?

Who drives in manhattan?

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

nothing to comprehend.. keep- backpedaling.!

Still not getting it, you are a fucking oxygen thief.

nothing to get...enjoying your display of ignorance though.

 

[daws101]

yep!
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
text size AAA
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.”
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.
- See more at: New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong Northwestern University News

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

Ah the dumb applauding the moronic.

As for deflection, I don't think it means what your think it means.

No one applauded you.

As for deflection, I wouldnt admit to it either. Evidently your pride is on the line.

I'll take honesty over pride every time.

 

[martybegan]

Funny, juries decide what is reasonable hundreds and thousands of times a day.

Juries also get over ruled on retrials and sometimes by the judge. Its subjective.

But they still determine reasonable doubt, and then the appeals courts do the same thing.

Stop deflecting. You arent smart enough to pull it off and me not notice. Reasonable is subject to interpretation. I may think its reasonable to slit someones throat for looking at me. Just because someone else thinks its unreasonable that doesnt make me incorrect.

reasonableness in the original case of a woman feeling threatened and responding with deadly force is a measurable quantity, and the way we do it is via trial by jury. in the case of your slitting someone else's throat for a look, 99.999% of juries would find that unreasonable, and convict your stupid ass.

and i will put my IQ and intellect up against yours any day of the week. Hell, I'll drink before I do it just to give you a fighting chance.

Sorry Maryt. Reasonable its not a measurable quantity. Its subjective like I said. In your example for legal purposes there must be a consensus. That doesn't mean its measurable. That simply means most or all must agree on it. Just because everyone else believed it was reasonable or unreasonable has no bearing on what someone else thought. When you can find an action that everyone believes has the same degree of reasonable or unreasonableness to it, let me know. You wouldnt be able to put your IQ and intellect up against mine. They dont make ladders that reach that far up.

Chemical Engineering Masters Degree, what you got dipshit?

 

[martybegan]

What part of your point did I prove?

Who drives in manhattan?

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

nothing to comprehend.. keep- backpedaling.!

Still not getting it, you are a fucking oxygen thief.

nothing to get...enjoying your display of ignorance though.

Just keep posting drivel, it makes my post count go up.

 

[martybegan]

A study from 2007 is the best thing you could google in 5-10 minutes?

LOL. What a fucking moron.

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

Ah the dumb applauding the moronic.

As for deflection, I don't think it means what your think it means.

No one applauded you.

As for deflection, I wouldnt admit to it either. Evidently your pride is on the line.

I'll take honesty over pride every time.

No deflection involved. Having your point disproved, or your lack of a point statement shown as such is not deflection.

 

[daws101]

Juries also get over ruled on retrials and sometimes by the judge. Its subjective.

But they still determine reasonable doubt, and then the appeals courts do the same thing.

Stop deflecting. You arent smart enough to pull it off and me not notice. Reasonable is subject to interpretation. I may think its reasonable to slit someones throat for looking at me. Just because someone else thinks its unreasonable that doesnt make me incorrect.

reasonableness in the original case of a woman feeling threatened and responding with deadly force is a measurable quantity, and the way we do it is via trial by jury. in the case of your slitting someone else's throat for a look, 99.999% of juries would find that unreasonable, and convict your stupid ass.

and i will put my IQ and intellect up against yours any day of the week. Hell, I'll drink before I do it just to give you a fighting chance.

Sorry Maryt. Reasonable its not a measurable quantity. Its subjective like I said. In your example for legal purposes there must be a consensus. That doesn't mean its measurable. That simply means most or all must agree on it. Just because everyone else believed it was reasonable or unreasonable has no bearing on what someone else thought. When you can find an action that everyone believes has the same degree of reasonable or unreasonableness to it, let me know. You wouldnt be able to put your IQ and intellect up against mine. They dont make ladders that reach that far up.

Chemical Engineering Masters Degree, what you got dipshit?

AS LONG AS WE'RE BRAGING, BA IN TECHNICAL THEATRE (ENGINEERING)
MASTER OF FINE ARTS TECHNICAL (LIGHTING EFX CONSTRUTION AND DESIGN).
30 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD..
and a big dick.
like yours it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[daws101]

epic failure at deflection.
all of it.
2. white move theaters are for the most part more quite than black movies theatres, more accurately white movie audience are more quiet than black audiences because of difference cultural and learned behaviors .

That's what I said, if you actually tried to read and comprehend the post.

nothing to comprehend.. keep- backpedaling.!

Still not getting it, you are a fucking oxygen thief.

nothing to get...enjoying your display of ignorance though.

Just keep posting drivel, it makes my post count go up.

more deflection, who the fuck cares about your post count.
if that kind of shit matters you need to get a life.

 

[daws101]

another deflection. You hate getting shown up dont you?

Ah the dumb applauding the moronic.

As for deflection, I don't think it means what your think it means.

No one applauded you.

As for deflection, I wouldnt admit to it either. Evidently your pride is on the line.

I'll take honesty over pride every time.

No deflection involved. Having your point disproved, or your lack of a point statement shown as such is not deflection.

still deflecting and being dishonest.
bend over and take it like a man.

 

[Asclepias]

Juries also get over ruled on retrials and sometimes by the judge. Its subjective.

But they still determine reasonable doubt, and then the appeals courts do the same thing.

Stop deflecting. You arent smart enough to pull it off and me not notice. Reasonable is subject to interpretation. I may think its reasonable to slit someones throat for looking at me. Just because someone else thinks its unreasonable that doesnt make me incorrect.

reasonableness in the original case of a woman feeling threatened and responding with deadly force is a measurable quantity, and the way we do it is via trial by jury. in the case of your slitting someone else's throat for a look, 99.999% of juries would find that unreasonable, and convict your stupid ass.

and i will put my IQ and intellect up against yours any day of the week. Hell, I'll drink before I do it just to give you a fighting chance.

Sorry Maryt. Reasonable its not a measurable quantity. Its subjective like I said. In your example for legal purposes there must be a consensus. That doesn't mean its measurable. That simply means most or all must agree on it. Just because everyone else believed it was reasonable or unreasonable has no bearing on what someone else thought. When you can find an action that everyone believes has the same degree of reasonable or unreasonableness to it, let me know. You wouldnt be able to put your IQ and intellect up against mine. They dont make ladders that reach that far up.

Chemical Engineering Masters Degree, what you got dipshit?

Network Engineering Masters.
Electrical Engineering BA

BTW what does that have to do with with your IQ or intellect?