"I think it's reasonable, for the purposes of HN discussion, to use the 2-8% figure with a qualifier as I did ("if the 2-8% error rate is correct")."
I understand that, and what I am saying is that I don't care if the person who wrote the editorial was a judge or any other person, his numbers aren't cited in any way shape or form and are left to rest completely on his laurels. That's fine for an op-ed, but you then latching onto those numbers, even with a qualifier, still undermines your position on the matter.
"You also misinterpreted the contents of my link."
Indeed, I seem to have focused too much on the tax crime angle, so I'll cede this point, but I still think that the numbers backing your linked blog are dubious, eg;
"In one study of his 10 of his colleagues by Judge Weinstein..."
"In a larger survey of federal judges throughout the country... Of the 171 judges who responded"
"ther attempts at empirical studies of these issues show that judges and suggest that jurors are all over the lot on the issue."
All I am saying is this: Show me the empirical studies and not the hugely biased numbers from some small pool of judges being asked how they rate their average conviction probability.
Sorry for the haste and missteps in my original comment.
While I concede the limitations of the data I relied on, I think they're illustrative of the general point. You, on the other hand, have provided zero evidence, empirical or anecdotal, for your conjecture that a high percentage of people pleading guilty are innocent.
Your bias comment also makes no sense. The bias in Judge Rakoff's article, to the extent it exists, is to cite higher than a 2-8% number because he's arguing against guilty pleas. And in the surveys the bias runs in the opposite direction: to make the reasonable doubt standard seem more stringent than it actually is. A judge saying that he only requires 75% probability of guilt to sustain a conviction is contrary to his self-interest.
I understand that, and what I am saying is that I don't care if the person who wrote the editorial was a judge or any other person, his numbers aren't cited in any way shape or form and are left to rest completely on his laurels. That's fine for an op-ed, but you then latching onto those numbers, even with a qualifier, still undermines your position on the matter.
"You also misinterpreted the contents of my link."
Indeed, I seem to have focused too much on the tax crime angle, so I'll cede this point, but I still think that the numbers backing your linked blog are dubious, eg;
"In one study of his 10 of his colleagues by Judge Weinstein..."
"In a larger survey of federal judges throughout the country... Of the 171 judges who responded"
"ther attempts at empirical studies of these issues show that judges and suggest that jurors are all over the lot on the issue."
All I am saying is this: Show me the empirical studies and not the hugely biased numbers from some small pool of judges being asked how they rate their average conviction probability.
Sorry for the haste and missteps in my original comment.