Preponderance of the evidence

[Loren Pechtel]

Lets take a look at the implications of using this standard to convict someone, even if jail time isn't involved:


We have a video:

Person A uses a computer to do an assignment. They finish it and print it out. They log off, person B sits down. They recover the file, put their own name on it and print it out, then have person C do likewise.

The teacher gets three identical papers.

From looking at the video it's clear that A had no part of the impropriety but B & C are in cahoots. Unfortunately, this happened on a day with a school spirit activity going on, all three were wearing clown makeup so there's no way to figure out who is who.

What do we do?

Expel all three cheaters.

Simple statistics shows that there's a 2/3 chance they cheated. That's greater than 50%, you have to rule against them.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

WHAT!?!?

 

[Angry Floof]

Think of the great things Loren could do in the world if didn't spend so much glucose on figuring out how to enhance and maximize the punishment mentality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

From looking at the video it's clear that A had no part of the impropriety

How can you possibly consider this to be true?
The video only shows that there was no collusion ON CAMERA. Who's to say he didn't text B and say, 'Hey, pull up my file report.docx...' ??
There's no evidence that he had NO PART of the plagiarism.

The best solution is not to charge all three with plagiarism, though. it's to test them on the contents of the report. Enter the exam grade as their report grade.
Logically, the actual author will do the best.

 

[Metaphor]

Think of the great things Loren could do in the world if didn't spend so much glucose on figuring out how to enhance and maximize the punishment mentality.

I might have misunderstood, but I think he's making a case against punishing all three based on preponderance of evidence.

 

[Jayjay]

Lets take a look at the implications of using this standard to convict someone, even if jail time isn't involved:


We have a video:

Person A uses a computer to do an assignment. They finish it and print it out. They log off, person B sits down. They recover the file, put their own name on it and print it out, then have person C do likewise.

The teacher gets three identical papers.

From looking at the video it's clear that A had no part of the impropriety but B & C are in cahoots. Unfortunately, this happened on a day with a school spirit activity going on, all three were wearing clown makeup so there's no way to figure out who is who.

What do we do?

Expel all three cheaters.

Simple statistics shows that there's a 2/3 chance they cheated. That's greater than 50%, you have to rule against them.

Since when is punishing the guilty is more important than not punishing the innocent?

 

[Deepak]

Lets take a look at the implications of using this standard to convict someone, even if jail time isn't involved:


We have a video:

Person A uses a computer to do an assignment. They finish it and print it out. They log off, person B sits down. They recover the file, put their own name on it and print it out, then have person C do likewise.

The teacher gets three identical papers.

From looking at the video it's clear that A had no part of the impropriety but B & C are in cahoots. Unfortunately, this happened on a day with a school spirit activity going on, all three were wearing clown makeup so there's no way to figure out who is who.

What do we do?

Expel all three cheaters.

Simple statistics shows that there's a 2/3 chance they cheated. That's greater than 50%, you have to rule against them.

Since when is punishing the guilty is more important than not punishing the innocent?

I don't think he's advocating for that outcome as much as pointing out the flaw of a preponderance of evidence standard.

 

[Derec]

Since when is punishing the guilty is more important than not punishing the innocent?

According to the Obama administration it is when vaginae are involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Think of the great things Loren could do in the world if didn't spend so much glucose on figuring out how to enhance and maximize the punishment mentality.

I might have misunderstood, but I think he's making a case against punishing all three based on preponderance of evidence.

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision. I'm not exactly surprised that some on here failed to see a standard form of logical argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since when is punishing the guilty is more important than not punishing the innocent?

When it's an accusation of rape in college.

This is a spinoff from the rape thread that I felt was better done as a separate thread.

 

[Stu]

The best solution is not to charge all three with plagiarism, though. it's to test them on the contents of the report. Enter the exam grade as their report grade.
Logically, the actual author will do the best.

What if there's an instruction from the federal government that since plagiarism is rampant on campus, if they don't investigate plagiarism, don't use a preponderance of evidence standard or don't expel those found guilty, they lose funding.

The "best solution" of not charging anyone isn't available. They have to find someone guilty, and if you haven't actively taken steps to defend yourself you can be expelled on the flimsiest of evidence. If there's a retest, that evidence could even be not doing as well as a known cheat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The best solution is not to charge all three with plagiarism, though. it's to test them on the contents of the report. Enter the exam grade as their report grade.
Logically, the actual author will do the best.

What if there's an instruction from the federal government that since plagiarism is rampant on campus, if they don't investigate plagiarism, don't use a preponderance of evidence standard or don't expel those found guilty, they lose funding.

THen testing them on the content of the report IS investigating the plagiarism. Charge the two with the lowest scores.

 

[Metaphor]

The best solution is not to charge all three with plagiarism, though. it's to test them on the contents of the report. Enter the exam grade as their report grade.
Logically, the actual author will do the best.

What if there's an instruction from the federal government that since plagiarism is rampant on campus, if they don't investigate plagiarism, don't use a preponderance of evidence standard or don't expel those found guilty, they lose funding.

The "best solution" of not charging anyone isn't available. They have to find someone guilty, and if you haven't actively taken steps to defend yourself you can be expelled on the flimsiest of evidence. If there's a retest, that evidence could even be not doing as well as a known cheat.

It doesn't change the power of the analogy; it just means that the federal law is misguided.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I might have misunderstood, but I think he's making a case against punishing all three based on preponderance of evidence.

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision.

Are there a lot of example cases where they prosecute all the possible suspects because they can't identify the perpetrators?
That's actually not a preponderance of evidence. You're saying you cannot identify the guilty parties, that's a lack of evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision.

Are there a lot of example cases where they prosecute all the possible suspects because they can't identify the perpetrators?
That's actually not a preponderance of evidence. You're saying you cannot identify the guilty parties, that's a lack of evidence.

I've been a teaching assistant at uni, and I have been responsible for alerting the course convenor to cases of plagiarism. The analogy isn't perfect because when it's one student copying off another, it is generally obvious who copied whom (or there was some kind of breach of trust where one person loaned their work to another for general ideas and tips, and that other person copied it wholesale).

I know when I was in primary school and high school in Australia, teachers would keep the entire class in over recess if something had been stolen or something or some other breach had occurred and they couldn't identify the individual. This smacked of injustice even when I was ten years old. (I later learned it is actually illegal but I bet it still goes on).

 

[Stu]

What if there's an instruction from the federal government that since plagiarism is rampant on campus, if they don't investigate plagiarism, don't use a preponderance of evidence standard or don't expel those found guilty, they lose funding.

THen testing them on the content of the report IS investigating the plagiarism. Charge the two with the lowest scores.

A lot of the time cheaters aren't incompetent, just lazy. Expulsion is enough motivation to lift their game, and if it lifts above the person they cheated from, you just got person A expelled.

 

[Deepak]

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision. I'm not exactly surprised that some on here failed to see a standard form of logical argument.

I'm not exactly sure what differentiates an obediance to preponderance of evidence with a blind one. Justice is blind, and in a darkened room when justice is determined by the preponderance of evidence standard.

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision.

Are there a lot of example cases where they prosecute all the possible suspects because they can't identify the perpetrators?
That's actually not a preponderance of evidence. You're saying you cannot identify the guilty parties, that's a lack of evidence.

The one thing working in favor of the clowns in Loren's example is that a jury of what they call my peers is most likely made up of people who don't understand Baysian probability.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3613&context=californialawreview

A glance at the digests, encyclopedias and texts will reveal the conflict, uncertainty and confusion which now exist in the decisions respecting the proper method of instructing a jury as to the degree of belief which they must have before they should find that the facts have been established by the litigant whose duty it is to establish them. Qualifications of language and ambiguous phrases in instructions stating that the litigant who has the burden of proof must establish the facts by a preponderance of the evidence have caused no small amount of trouble for both litigants and appellate judges. "Satisfaction of the jury," "reasonable satisfaction," "convince their minds" and similar expressions have been the subject of much judicial conflict 2 and hair splitting. Nothing is to be gained by a detailed discussion of these cases. The discussion would be profitless and reading it would be both profitless and wearisome. The body of the law will be healthier and stronger when they nolonger have current significance but have become legal history, only.

The problem with the preponderance of evidence standard is that a fact-finder cannot conclude that there is insufficient evidence. Once the case is in front of them they must decide for one party and against another, and in either case a decision is being made. Res judicata and all that.

 

[laughing dog]

I might have misunderstood, but I think he's making a case against punishing all three based on preponderance of evidence.

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision. I'm not exactly surprised that some on here failed to see a standard form of logical argument.

Who is proposing blind obedience to the preponderance of evidence?

 

[Stu]

Exactly--I was showing that a blind obedience to preponderance of the evidence results in an obviously stupid decision. I'm not exactly surprised that some on here failed to see a standard form of logical argument.

Who is proposing blind obedience to the preponderance of evidence?

The United States Department of Education. There's no wiggle room - they must use this standard and not a lower one such as "clear and convincing evidence".

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104_pg11.html

 

[laughing dog]

Who is proposing blind obedience to the preponderance of evidence?

The United States Department of Education. There's no wiggle room - they must use this standard and not a lower one such as "clear and convincing evidence".

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104_pg11.html

I don't see anything there about blind obedience (i.e. applying it without reason).