The purpose of my questions (What is an anti-trial? Who will have the burden of persuasion? What will the standard of proof be?) was not to test my worst case scenarios.

The purpose was to test whether your proposal could be effectively implemented in the real world.

I generally don't engage in battles of wit with an unarmed man, hence I stepped back from Sklansky and his chezamite a few weeks back.

But sure, if you want to get your boss to show me even half his wit, why don't we have a little maths contest? You can be ref. It'll be fun for me when you have to declare me winner.

What is the typical statute of limitations for crimes that can get you ten years?

7 years.

Edit: most crimes that can get you "10 years" can get you between 0 and 40 years. And on those crimes, the statute of limitations is 7 years.

Murder has no statute of limitations. I'm not sure about others, but I think you're OK with the stuff you did, it was over 7 years ago. Although, if it's a continuing enterprise, the statute of limitations can be reset, it's magic like that.

I jest, sort of. But let's say you encouraged a vulnerable woman to commit suicide in 2022. Now, that could be some sort of a manslaughter charge. Let's say you get found guilty. This is where the fun part comes in - during sentencing, they could bring up the Brandi event, no burden of proof, nothing. You don't even get to mount a defence, other than a meaningless statement during sentencing. Statute of limitations has run on that charge, so you can't technically be charged for it. But the judge could review that, and give you 10 years instead of probation.

That's how drug laws work in your country.

By "anti trial" I meant a trial where the "defendant" is trying to prove his guilt rather than innocence. As to "effectively implemented" my definition would be that something like more than a dozen innocents are set free while fewer than 100 guilty are. I obviously think that results would be far better but even what I wrote would be immoral to turn down.

Also, your point about the statute of limitations barely applies because my suggested waiting period was one or two years and our resident expert says the statute of limitations for the crimes I had in mind is seven years or more.

You are a ****ing philistine. There is no such thing as an "anti-trial". There are various burdens of proof:

Scientific
Criminal - beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil - by a preponderance of the evidence

Which one of these is an "anti-trial"? Like "not beyond a reasonable doubt"? What the **** are you actually talking about?

Geometric series:

1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 + ... = 1 / (1-x) for |x| < 1.

Differentiate both sides:

1 + 2x + 3x^2 + 4x^3 + ... = 1 / (1-x)^2

Multiply by x:

x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + 4x^4 + ... = x / (1-x)^2

Set x = 1/2:

1/2 + 2/4 + 3/8 + 4/16 + ... = (1/2) / (1 - 1/2)^2 = 2.

Sklansky has already explained - while he has taught calculus to strippers, he is not too hot at differentiating himself.

And, bro, good to see you!

How was my example of a telescoping series? I am sure there are easier ones out there. And also, my original hint was basically misdirection, but you knew that. What is your canonical example of a telescoping series?

It varies, but something like five years

The confessor is trying to prove his guilt in a court proceeding, presumably before a jury. I assume that the confessor has to prove his guilt by whatever standard of proof. In other words, he has the burden of persuasion. It isn't up to the other side to prove that the confessor is not guilty. Is all of that correct?

Who is acting as the confessor's lawyer? Prosecutors obviously can't be expected to perform this duty. Few confessors can be expected to pay for private attorneys. I guess that public defenders would act as the confessor's attorney. Who is representing the other side? Prosecutors?

Does the confessor have the burden of proving that he did not collude with the convicted man? I guess that burden would fall on prosecutors.

What will the jury be instructed is sufficient evidence on which to base a "the confessor is guilty" verdict? Specifically, can the jury base its verdict solely on the confession of the confessor, or does the confessor have the burden to come forward with physical evidence that corroborates his guilt? It's strange, right, because a confession by the defendant is game over in the typical criminal context. It's extremely persuasive to the jury because most people on juries assume that they would never confess to a crime that they did not commit. But the incentives for the confessor are very different in this sort of proceeding.

Can the convicted perp be forced to testify in the confessor's criminal proceeding?

Does the convicted man automatically go free if the jury finds that the confessor is guilty? What happens if the prosecutors believe, based on the evidence proffered by the confessor, that both the confessor and the convicted man were involved in the crime? Does the confessor have the burden of proving that the convicted person is innocent? For example, imagine that a man is convicted of murder. Five years later, the widow of the murder victim comes forward with convincing evidence that (i) she was was having an affair with the convicted man; and (ii) she helped the convicted man plan the murder and she knowingly gave the convicted man critical information that allowed him to successfully carry out the murder.

This woman is definitely guilty of murder. But in this scenario, surely the convicted man does not get released.

/thread?

I like how you proved the convergence before you proceeded to the sum. It's almost like you've played this game before.

Far more straightforward methods will help innocent people more. Your proposal isn't free so simply giving more resources to public defenders and hiring public investigators that have powers similar to cops but work on behalf of people accused of crimes would be better.

This illustraes a typical catch 22 problem with (particualrly usa) criminal reform

The system is so ****ed up that any change runs into problems but to solve those problems there has to be change. One change I would propose is no sentence shoudl ever be greater than the statute of limitations. If it's serious enough for a long sentence then it's more than serious enough to pursue.

No doubt someone will try to come up with a counter example but even if there are some then the point holds.

I feel guilty that I am the cause of your writing so many words. Hopefully you enjoy doing stuff like that.

How about for a start, the procedure is simply whatever it is now in those very rare cases of a confession spurred by a desire to free someone? It sometimes succeeds and sometimes doesn't. The only difference is that under my scheme, if it does work the confessor gets amnesty (when the statute of limitations hasn't been reached) and gets a bigger punishment than now if the confession is obviously bogus. That will mean there are a lot more confessions. Some will succeed honestly. Some will succeed dishonestly. Some will confess their way into jail because it was easy to prove they lied. Most will probably result in no decision.

Isn't this better handled more like an appeal process. No-one is being convicted so a jury isn't needed. The lawyers would be the defense lawyers for the person in prison

Judges can decide if the conviction is now unsafe. Then in addition if they think it's some conspiracy to get someone released then that can be directed though the usual prosecution/trial procedures.

Dave, there are 3 people ITT with an IQ above 140. I'm straddling the line, and you are nowhere close. Do you know who the other 2 are?

If that is correct, then don't make the procedure so complicated. Don't abandon the idea completely. As I wrote to Roccoco above you could stick to the present procedure except there is amnesty and a bigger punishment for false confessions than we have now.

The simple proof that you and Roccoco's objections to the general idea don't reach the level of abandoning it completely (I should note that the freed would probably be overwhelmingly minorities) is that neither ganstaman nor uke master have come on here to object to it.

Chezlaw and washoe. Give me a harder one.

He meant individually.

Anyways, if his math is correct there are now 4 people.

All the best.

What do you mean abandoning? It doesn't exist now. I am advocating for something simpler that would probably work better. You just don't like it because what I'm saying is trivial and completely uninteresting to write about.

"Anyways"?

Ideas can't be abandoned? However, I misread your post. I thought you were worried that my idea would pull away those who are helping others now. There are other things to say but since no one else is bringing up your actual objection I don't feel like doing that.

Even if the convicted man's attorney was not available, there would be those innocence project lawyers. And if the confessor's story seemed true, I would think that plenty of high priced lawyers would gladly take on the case considering the publicity they would garner from freeing an innocent man.

But again, none of these details matter as long as the incorrectly freed does not massively outnumber the correctly freed. It is inconceivable to me that that would occur.

I think my idea of just paying people to help the accused is better. The wrongfully accused are pretty clearly going to be poor, and it's not just that they don't have good lawyers. I imagine in criminal cases, it's more that they simply don't have a person working 40 hours a week for the 6 months leading up to trial to verify an alibi.