[math-fun] Draft of my May 17, 2019 essay
I've written another essay (a little shorter than usual), which I'll either call A Mathematician in the Jury Box, or, “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?” or “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?”, or, A Mathematician in the Jury Box (I can't decide which is better). See http://mathenchant.org/048-draft2.pdf Comments are welcome! Jim
Interesting. In California DWI and driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.08% (formerly 0.1%), called DUI, are separate offenses. I was on a jury in which the defendant was charged with both. The cops said he had ignored their red light behind him for a couple of blocks. He didn't pass their walk-along-this-line test, but he passed the others. His BAC tested at 0.1% by the urine method which was the limit at that time. The defense had a former police lab employee testify. I asked him what was the uncertainty in the a measurment (in CA a juror can ask a question by writing it out and giving it the judge who passes it to whichever lawyer he thinks appropriate)? He said it was 0.01% So on the grounds that 0.099 to 0.101 was not above 0.1 beyond a reasonable doubt, I voted to acquit on the DUI count. But we convicted on the DWI count. I was convinced that if he didn't notice a flashing red light in his rearview mirror for two blocks he wasn't fit to drive. I think you were right to want to convict. Surely he knew he had diabetes and was more susceptible to alcohol. Brent On 5/10/2019 7:54 PM, James Propp wrote:
I've written another essay (a little shorter than usual), which I'll either call A Mathematician in the Jury Box, or, “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?” or “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?”, or, A Mathematician in the Jury Box
(I can't decide which is better). See http://mathenchant.org/048-draft2.pdf
Comments are welcome!
Jim _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
How could the charges be structured so that the jury feels the most serious charge is overreach (lowest probability of conviction), but the less serious charge (highest probability of conviction) then seems reasonable? Doesn't that give the jury a low hanging fruit sense of accomplishment in administering justice because they eliminated the charges with lowest p-values? Doesn't that effectively guarantee a conviction of *something*, given enough charges? For instance: charge someone with DUI, DWI, reckless driving, speeding, ignoring commands to pull over, driving on the shoulder, rolling through a stop sign (albeit very slowly), 10 counts of making a turn without signaling, and driving too slowly (at a time different than when speeding). Isn't the jury now tempted to make a decision by finding some sort of median in this Gaussian of charges? Suppose your jury does not need a unanimous decision --- how does that shift the effective median? What has to happen so that the median says "acquit of everything"? Doesn't that lead the jury not to do that because then the defendant could "get away with it"? Don't acquittals behave, roughly speaking, according to a geometric distribution on the number of charges? On 5/10/19 20:46 , Brent Meeker via math-fun wrote:
Interesting. In California DWI and driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.08% (formerly 0.1%), called DUI, are separate offenses. I was on a jury in which the defendant was charged with both. The cops said he had ignored their red light behind him for a couple of blocks. He didn't pass their walk-along-this-line test, but he passed the others. His BAC tested at 0.1% by the urine method which was the limit at that time. The defense had a former police lab employee testify. I asked him what was the uncertainty in the a measurment (in CA a juror can ask a question by writing it out and giving it the judge who passes it to whichever lawyer he thinks appropriate)? He said it was 0.01% So on the grounds that 0.099 to 0.101 was not above 0.1 beyond a reasonable doubt, I voted to acquit on the DUI count. But we convicted on the DWI count. I was convinced that if he didn't notice a flashing red light in his rearview mirror for two blocks he wasn't fit to drive.
I think you were right to want to convict. Surely he knew he had diabetes and was more susceptible to alcohol.
Brent
On 5/10/2019 7:54 PM, James Propp wrote:
I've written another essay (a little shorter than usual), which I'll either call A Mathematician in the Jury Box, or, “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?” or “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?”, or, A Mathematician in the Jury Box
(I can't decide which is better). See http://mathenchant.org/048-draft2.pdf
Comments are welcome!
Jim _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On 11 May 2019 at 8:25, Andres Valloud wrote:
How could the charges be structured so that the jury feels the most serious charge is overreach (lowest probability of conviction), but the less serious charge (highest probability of conviction) then seems reasonable? Doesn't that give the jury a low hanging fruit sense of accomplishment in administering justice because they eliminated the charges with lowest p-values?
What you're asking is a legal question, not a mathematical one, and it depends on the way a state's laws are written. Here in VA, the relevant statute says, in part, § 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc. ... (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature ... and even by the most generous definition of "influence", passing out clearly fits the bill. And the defense lawyer *admitted* that (a) the accused had been drinking, (b) that diabetics are more sensitive to alcohol than normal and (c) that's what the situation was with his client. He has *admitted* that his client is guilty under condition (ii) [at least here in VA.
Doesn't that effectively guarantee a conviction of *something*, given enough charges?
This isn't a legal forum, so probably not worth discussing, but generally there are many "nested" offenses at question and the jury can, in fact, what "level" the accused might be guilty of, if any. [consider the tiers of murder, manslaughter, etc] /b\ Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com -- Too many people; too few sheep --
Hi, On 5/11/19 4:08 , Bernie Cosell wrote:
On 11 May 2019 at 8:25, Andres Valloud wrote:
How could the charges be structured so that the jury feels the most serious charge is overreach (lowest probability of conviction), but the less serious charge (highest probability of conviction) then seems reasonable? Doesn't that give the jury a low hanging fruit sense of accomplishment in administering justice because they eliminated the charges with lowest p-values?
What you're asking is a legal question, not a mathematical one, and it depends on the way a state's laws are written.
I asked whether the probability density distribution that best reflects the acquittal behavior of the jury, when seen as a function of the number of charges, was a geometric. The jurors' decisions on each charge are not independent experiments, obviously. However, does the jury revert to the mean nonetheless, for some definition of "mean of the charges"? Specifically regarding the case you referred to, I wasn't there and I have no opinion. Andres.
Jim, The latter, definitely: it flows better to have the quote as the title, and the description as the subtitle. (As I happened to drink wine this evening, to a non-trivial extent, I claim to be in a position to judge* matters pertaining to both mathematicians and intoxication.) * no pun intended. Best wishes, Adam P. Goucher
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:54 AM From: "James Propp" <jamespropp@gmail.com> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [math-fun] Draft of my May 17, 2019 essay
I've written another essay (a little shorter than usual), which I'll either call A Mathematician in the Jury Box, or, “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?” or “But how should we define ‘intoxicated’?”, or, A Mathematician in the Jury Box
(I can't decide which is better). See http://mathenchant.org/048-draft2.pdf
Comments are welcome!
Jim _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (5)
-
Adam P. Goucher -
Andres Valloud -
Bernie Cosell -
Brent Meeker -
James Propp