I don't know what this means, but it isn't responsive to the questions I raised. You reiterated in another post that you don't think any of this matters. I do. We can't have a debate when one side of the discussion insists that the questions aren't worth asking or answering. So I guess this conversation between the two of us has run its course.

If it is actually true that you must choose one or the other, I am willing to agree. Whether you are right about that is not something I have an opinion about. Others though may object to your sacrificing those presently unjustly incarcerated to avoid it happening to a larger number in the future.

I should note that there are two other things that will put pressure against my proposal that will not be mentioned publicly. One is that prosecutors and others in the legal system will not like the prospect of being shown to be incompetent as often as would happen. The second reason is that many people will not like even those proved innocent to be released because they will say that most of those prisoners have convicted other equally bad crimes that they got away with. Add that to their general aversion to the possibility of undeserved amnesty and I have my work cut out for me even if I don't address some of the more esoteric objections.

Yup. That is the informal use of the word. You can check the dictionary if you prefer. I use informal and simple language quite a bit when speaking to <140s to better relate to them.

All the best.

P.S. Yup is a variant of yep, and yep is an informal version of yes.

lololololol

but for real, i take a strong over on 3

You can just assign them investigators/lawyers as well. Just make it someone’s job to work on behalf of these people and fund it better than the current system.

Wow, didn't even know you had a sense of humour!

Always knew you had a sense of humour.

That was a good one btw!

Ok, just as long as you understand that I'm not saying that your questions aren't not worth asking but rather that they could not possibly have bad enough answers to put the kabash on my proposal. They become very important once the general proposal is adopted. Similarly, for eccriture's idea. Tt's fine. Except why not fund it with a slight reduction in the defense budget rather than by depriving unjustly imprisoned of a chance to get out?

can probably fund people not being in prison by them not being in prison

which you could add to your list of pressure against any such proposal (usa only)

I wasn't counting Mathematical Richard. That dude's IQ is prob like 220, but he is not really "ITT".

it's not size that matters

I don't spend nearly as much time thinking about you as you might think.

I don't know why you're so convinced that so many criminals would be willing to confess in this system. Therefore, it isn't clear that the cost-benefit ratio is there compared to other ideas the same resources could be put towards.

Only if we insisted on the anti trial type stuff. (And I am not convinced there would be a lot of confessors) But the general principle literally cannot be wrong if the concept is tweaked to whatever standards objectors insist upon. If your objection actually has merit, all you would need to do would be to accept only obvious slam dunk confessions. Keep in mind one thing. The government is not ever going to let two completely, obviously non colluding, people serve time for the same crime when only one of them could have done it or be in on it. The government can't both disbelieve the confessor and put him in jail for the crime.

In other words, at the very least, a version of my idea that would cost almost nothing and would release only a handful of innocents is still better than not adopting the idea at all. How far beyond that version is adopted need not be figured out until later.

Note: This concept that money could be put to better use is not only debatable (even if true) because those presently harmed should maybe get priority over those who could be harmed in the future, but is also not a good argument if the chances of implementing the "better" idea is a lot less. Both conservatives and liberals could (reluctantly) get behind some version of my idea. Not so much yours and ecriture's alternative.

Also as long as I have you here I should point out that my reply to your comment about paying to get out of disability retrofits missed something. You said the money they paid would presumably go to retrofits anyway. What I should have replied was that it would go to retrofits at a different establishment than the one that is paying the "fine". That paying to get out of the regulation would only be open to establishments that could show they had very few disabled customers and also that they were operating in a town with lots of disabled friendly alternatives.

I will not comment on the Carly Simon anti-tautology.

I had to Google to see if she was who I thought she was.

I find nearly everything in this thread and on sklansky.com to be either obvious or ridiculous, and I don't have the time, energy, nor desire to dive through all these rabbit holes.

The chances of implementing what you are talking about is much much lower than what we are talking about. What you want requires states or municipalities to change laws. All it takes for what the rest of us are proposing is a DA or a mayor changing policy and moving some money around. The weakest form of this already exists. If some guy comes forward and confesses to help an innocent guy get out, that will absolutely factor in to his sentencing.

My feedback for the disabled stuff is to talk to some disabled people about it. I have the feeling I am not doing a great job of explaining my point.

To use a poker analogy it feels like you are too focused on the specific hand and not enough on the range. An environment that you know every business is handicap accessible is worth something. Once businesses can buy out you lose this environment. Something better would be using a go fund me or something to raise money to make it handicap accessible.

1. Put Expensive Parking Meters on Some Handicapped Parking Spaces. Currently there seems to be far too many unused such spaces that could be used by non-handicapped slow-moving seniors and temporarily injured folks. Expand the eligibility. I do get the idea of getting the rich people in a lot of these situations (like first class airline seats) to pay but not sure if its appropriate here.
3. Why Can’t You Pump Your Own Gas In New Jersey? I’d like to have someone pump my gas if it only added a 5% or so to the cost. But I guess its not even optional in NJ. Politico-legal quagmire.
7. Equip Cars With a “SORRY” Light. Something like that sort of vehicle message device already exists. search Mojipic Voice Controlled Emoji Car LED Display
10. Standardize End Game Decisions on Bettable Games Out of Reach. This will eventually become a big sports gambling issue for sure now that sports gambling has spread nationwide. Some sort of accommodation is needed. Maybe a public coinflip.
27. The Game Theory Solution to the Game of “Chicken. Throw your steering wheel out the window. Yes, in theory, a GTO solution. As long as you can be sure the other driver can see and comprehend what you did. Also hope the other driver is not suicidal or happens to freeze up or is on mind altering drug. But your basic principle is clever.
45. A Positive Test for a Very Rare Disease is Probably Wrong yes its "wrong" if you think it is a definitive diagnosis but AFAIK its not used that way. A positive result to doctors means that a more expensive, more risky evaluation is worth doing.
52. The Odd Connection Between Placebos, Peeping Toms and Babe Ruth Autographed Baseballs. Do you see it? If you are the victim of a dishonest doctor who takes advantage of your susceptibility, a pervert outside your window, or a thief/forger who steals the baseball and replaces it with a counterfeit, you are only harmed if someone tells you it happened. Should they?
Keen observation. IMO They should be told because of possible future worse harm that could occur such as not getting a real valid treatment, pervert takes pictures to post, collector tries to sell the counterfeit item.

enough for now

I understand your point. My main quarrel with it is that you are equating the value of knowing that every business is accessible to a disabled person, to what it is worth to, for instance, a black or transgender person. The owner of a small store on top of a mountain could be extremely empathetic to disabled people and have many friends in that community. Those friends would be appalled that he was enduring hardship because a law had no exceptions.

I don’t think you know how accessibility laws actually works.

Fine. If you say so. That just means I should delete that aside from my post. Not discard my idea. Although I should add that I don't think laws have to be changed. I think the governor could just announce that he will pardon anyone who confesses (once the stage has been reached where the convict has exhausted all appeals and is facing years more in jail.)

I don't. As I said this idea is second hand, given to me by the friend of someone who was harmed. If the law actually is different than what was assumed in #16, then I eliminate it and you did me a favor by alerting me to it.

Not surprised. Except for the fact that you seem to be giving the possibility of freeing unjustly imprisoned short shrift. Especially now that recent events have allowed us to extrapolate that there are thousands of such people.

I don’t know for sure either, but I think there is a reasonable accommodation exception. If it’s considered too difficult for the business to comply, they don’t have to.

Thanks for the feedback.

1. Expanding eligibility is a reasonable alternative. Or there could be a hybrid where the semi handicapped can only use the spaces when the meter is turned on (but its free for them). Anything is better than the sea of unused spaces we see now.

3. Actually there are better examples since NJ may think of their law as a badge of honor. Silly laws are also bad examples, as are laws that actually have a reason to vary from state to state. I'm thinking mainly of laws you find out about when a commercial ends with "not available in Montana, Rhode Island and Texas".

7. Good. I will change the advice to go buy that gizmo.

27. Not my idea and included only because most people don't know it and would get a kick out of it. Unless they extrapolate to certain types of negotiations or attempt to avoid a nuclear war.

45. Since it is a good idea to order more tests when the chances move from miniscule to decent, society is not harmed by the fact that most doctors overestimate those chances. Not harmed in that specific case. But they are harmed in general by most doctor's ignorance. (See the book Rationality.)

52. I posted this not because whether they should be notified is an important question. I posted it to show off the quirky cerebrum I share a body with. My son says it is his favorite on the list.