All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Final Class Feedback [12-01-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Of what is this 'evidence'?

2 replies | 2 unread

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

28 replies | 28 unread

Feedback [11-30-20]

44 replies | 44 unread

Thanksgiving Thread

19 replies | 19 unread

Peremptory Challenges [11-23-2020]

77 replies | 77 unread

Feedback [11-17-20]

57 replies | 57 unread

Your questions, doubts and concerns about confrontation and cross as core jury process.

22 replies | 22 unread

Feedback November 10

17 replies | 17 unread

Feedback [11-09-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Discussion Group 2 [11-9-2020]

19 replies | 19 unread

Discussion Group 1 [11-9-2020]

28 replies | 28 unread

Election Night

25 replies | 25 unread

George Fisher Caves [11-03-2020]

29 replies | 29 unread

Group 1 [11-03-2020]

53 replies | 53 unread

Group 2 [11-03-2020]

49 replies | 49 unread

Group 3 [11-03-2020]

35 replies | 35 unread

Feedback 11-2-2020

34 replies | 34 unread

Feedback 10-27-2020

47 replies | 47 unread

Discussion 10-27-2020

59 replies | 59 unread

Feedback 10-26-2020

51 replies | 51 unread

Hypothetical 10-19-20

49 replies | 49 unread

Feedback 10-20-2020

15 replies | 15 unread

Feedback 10-19-20

22 replies | 22 unread

Surveillance 10-19-20

46 replies | 46 unread

Feedback October 13, 2020

20 replies | 20 unread


31 replies | 31 unread

REVIEW - October 13, 2020. Please offer questions and concerns.

3 replies | 3 unread

Feedback Oct 6, 2020 - violence of discussion for some

7 replies | 7 unread

Feedback October 6, 2020

67 replies | 67 unread

Feedback Oct 5, 2020 Fair

4 replies | 4 unread

Gatecrasher - Who Wins?

15 replies

Blue Bus

25 replies | 25 unread

Conjunction --In what order should we decide the elements of the alleged crime?

21 replies | 21 unread

Prison Yard - Can WE prosecute all of them?

38 replies | 38 unread

Feedback [09-29-20]

17 replies | 17 unread

Would you be interested in joining together in threads while watching the Trump-Biden debate?

20 replies | 20 unread

feedback sept 28

26 replies | 26 unread

What is your biggest fear going forward?

40 replies | 40 unread

BIAS (in judgmen)t

9 replies | 9 unread

Feedback #1

30 replies | 30 unread

racism - anti-racism

41 replies | 41 unread

what is your passion?

40 replies | 40 unread

What do you feel you have to learn about fair trial? Do you feel that fair trial matters?

9 replies | 9 unread

Give Thanks

0 replies

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: Consider the case in which it is common ground that 499 people paid for admission into a rodeo, and that 1,000 are counted on the seats, of whom A is one. Suppose no tickets were issued and there can be no testimony as to whether A paid for admission or climbed over the fence. So by any plausible criterion of mathematical probability there is a .501 probability, on the admitted facts, that he did not pay. The theory would apparently imply that in such circumstances the rodeo organisers were entitled to judgment against A for the admission money, since the balance of probability (and also the difference between prior and posterior probabilities) would lie in their favour.
Blackeye: This disturbs me because the organizers could sue all 1000 for judgement in their favor. This mathematically ensures that some innocent people are found guilty and actually serves as a windfall for the organizers
Pinwheel: @Blackeye how would you solve the problem? Would you have the organizer's bear the loss entirely?
Messier 83: I would be okay with that. Seems like if the rodeo wants to recoup they should be held responsible for keeping some sort of inventory to present as proof
Felucia: ^^I would. First, like Blackeye, I'm uncomfy with 51/49. Second, I think it's on the rodeo to have better security/entrance measures, and bear the loss if people take advantage of a lax system
Arcturus: ^^ agree with Felucia
Venus: I would feel more comfortable with a system where the organizers bear the loss over one where half of attendees pay 2x. Oy encourages a better system to monitor who pays.
Vorash: let them sue and let the jury decide on the facts presented. I would uphold a judgement on appeal. I would definitely like the point to be made at trial that the company did not have reasonable measures to stop things like this
Proteus: I also would prefer to protect A, who is a lone attendee. The venue obviously could have done more to protect itself AND its patrons, whereas A did everything they could have done
Triton: I think the case should be tried as a class. One trial for all 1000 attendees. If you can prove that you were not among the gatecrashers, you get out. If you can't you're, in the class of defendants and will bear your proportion of the cost to the plaintiff.
Rigil Kentaurus: The 50% probability is totally nuts. Suppose there are only two people, me and one other person, driving on a highway, and one of the two of us negligently runs over Jane Doe. It would be absolutely insane and an outrage to just immediately seek and be entitled to damages from both drivers, one of whom we know had nothing to do with the offense at all
Tyffi: No, there needs to be evidence A did not pay. The loss in revenue is the Rodeo's fault. Not the spectator who had a probability of .499 probability of paying.
Alderaan: The venue should have done more to protect against something like this -- they should bear costs
Rigil Kentaurus: Why should half the people be hauled into trial and have to prove their case with no real evidence against them?? That's a big cost and a big injustice
Sunflower: The organisers contributed to the mess.