
N Guilty Men (1997) - zargon
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
======
Zikes
It would be nice to live in a society when the certainty of someone having
committed a crime directly relates to the justice system's proclamation of
guilt.

Instead, for most Americans, for whom a competent lawyer is outside of the
range of reasonable cost, we only get public defenders. A prosecutor's career
is built on the back of successful convictions, whether just or not, while a
public defender's career is built on the number of cases they can speedily
close. For both, the most advantageous and therefore most common resolution is
a guilty plea bargain.

"N Guilty Men" philosophical debates are too far above today's justice system
for serious consideration.

~~~
jMyles
> It would be nice to live in a society when the certainty of someone having
> committed a crime directly relates to the justice system's proclamation of
> guilt.

Such a great distillation of the national shame of the United States. Agreed!

> "N Guilty Men" philosophical debates are too far above today's justice
> system for serious consideration.

I do not concur. I think that this is exactly the kind of thinking that we
need to motivate ourselves to replace the current "criminal justice" system in
full.

~~~
emmelaich
Exactly. If N is found to be low, then your society is in trouble.

------
JoshTriplett
This is the kind of reasoning that doesn't get thought about very often. Much
like debates on how much a human life is worth, people look at you as
heartless for even considering the question, but with limited resources, it's
more heartless not to. If you want to save the most lives, you need to
determine how to do the most good.

Questions like this one inform standards of evidence, burdens of proof, and
many other factors of the justice system. Any potential change to the justice
system will potentially change 'n'.

For instance, criminal law uses "beyond a reasonable doubt", while civil law
uses the lower standard "preponderance of the evidence", precisely because 'n'
is lower when talking about money than when talking about jail time.

~~~
tamana
Civil law is symmetric: party a vs party b. If the rules were biased, it would
be profitable to commit civil crime or to make false claims. Criminal law is
far more asymmetric -- the government never goes to jail, and citizens can
never press their own charges.

------
massel
"To be on the safe side, criminals who go to D.C. to violate federal law
should run for public office." \- Best thing I've read today

------
patmcc
Excellent piece - I think my favourite is the advice to criminals section:
"Criminals, therefore, are advised to go to New Mexico (n = 99) or Oklahoma (n
= 100)."

~~~
sirclueless
I particularly like the reasoning they use to determine that N > 1/54 for
involuntarily committing people in California.

[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm#T187](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm#T187)
[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm#187](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm#187)

------
rchiniquy
Thanks so much for posting this. I read it so many years ago and have
frequently wanted to refer back to it, but didn't remember the title. Very
grateful.

------
whack
In all these discussions pitting innocent men getting imprisoned vs guilty men
going free, one factor rarely ever comes up: innocent men (and women and
children) who fall victim to crime.

IMO, one of the most valuable roles of the justice system is to be a
deterrent. _" If you commit a crime, you will be put in jail, so don't even
think about it."_ If you've ever witnessed schoolyard bullying in action,
that's exactly what every single day in adult life would also look like, if
not for the justice system. By deterring would-be-criminals, it keeps innocent
people safe, without even having to send the would-be-criminals to jail.

Except that it isn't a perfect deterrent. Crime is still a major factor in
society. To give just one example, 20% of women in America experience sexual
assault at some point in their lives. And then there's robbery, assault,
manslaughter, homicide... Some crimes are committed by those who're mentally
unstable, or in the heat of the moment. But the vast majority are committed by
criminals who are fully aware of what they are doing. People who would never
do it if they knew for sure they would go to jail, but think they have a good
enough chance of getting away with it. They either think they won't get caught
by the police, or even if they did get fingered, they can find some loophole
or weakness in the prosecution's case that would enable them to beat the rap.
And the likelihood of the latter really comes down to how high the burden of
proof is. A guilty person is much more likely to get convicted in a legal
system where "n = 5", as opposed to "n = 10."

Psychology studies show that punishments are most effective as deterrents when
they are consistent, immediate and guaranteed. The greater the variance, the
better the chances of someone getting away with it, the less powerful the
deterrent effect will be. Which means you're going to have more victims of
crime. More victims of assault, kidnappings, rape and murder.

Which is really what the trade off should be all about. _" It's better that N
innocent people fall victim to crime, than for 1 innocent person to go to
jail."_ Now what would your answer for N be?

~~~
mindslight
Still n >> 1\. An individual is able to exercise judgment to avoid becoming a
victim of crime, and in fact most crime prevention is distributed in this
manner. But if the government arbitrarily decides to make you its victim, it's
basically impossible to avoid. Furthermore when the government is the
assailant, there's little chance of post-hoc justice.

~~~
whack
If you're going to say that crime victims can exercise judgement to avoid
becoming victims, the exact same thing can be said for a defendant in criminal
court. _" If you didn't go out at night, if you didn't keep the wrong friends,
if you stayed home with your family who can serve as your alibi, you wouldn't
be charged with this crime."_ Saying that potential crime victims should limit
how they live their lives, but potential defendants shouldn't have to, is a
double standard.

------
kazinator
Is this figure supposed to be independent of the level of crime and
punishment?

As in

* better to let ten shoplifting schoolboys go than to give one a slap on the wrist; and

* better to let ten serial killers go than to execute an innocent person?

~~~
sirclueless
This is addressed somewhat in the essay. For example, it mentions that God and
Roman emperor Trajan limit the maxim to capital punishment, but Blackstone
considers his version to apply to all forms of punishment.

[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm#T37](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm#T37)

------
microcolonel
If a criminal is free, perhaps they can be reformed. If an innocent is
convicted, they will suffer as a criminal.

