> And "biased towards convicting more innocent people" is bad.
How can you write that following a sentence which admits we "have no way of knowing".
We can't even say that more convictions is no fewer innocent convictions, let alone more.
Say that 1% of the accused in some jurisdiction are innocent. In that situation, the ideal conviction rate is 99%. It's possible to have a 2% conviction rate where the convictions are wrong half the time (and the acquittals are all wrong), and a 1% conviction rate where the decisions are all backwards in relation to guilt.
You're assuming the full-time aristocrat will do a better job, which is the thing there is no evidence of. It could be completely the opposite -- the aristocrat makes their decisions based on political connectedness, finding everyone guilty except their cronies who are actually guilty.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the assumption should not be that either of them is inherently better at the job, and then a higher total conviction rate implies a higher false conviction rate.
How can you write that following a sentence which admits we "have no way of knowing".
We can't even say that more convictions is no fewer innocent convictions, let alone more.
Say that 1% of the accused in some jurisdiction are innocent. In that situation, the ideal conviction rate is 99%. It's possible to have a 2% conviction rate where the convictions are wrong half the time (and the acquittals are all wrong), and a 1% conviction rate where the decisions are all backwards in relation to guilt.