Quote from: StormBringer;246385Oh, I know.  I was shooting for that three denials before the rooster crows or something.  

Oh, Ok then.

My last comment here will be this: The insanity defense is raised about 1% of the time.

IF the prosecutor and judge agree to it and do not fight it, it has a 25 or so percent success rate. So in about 25% of the cases it's raised in, the court agrees the perp is insane and doesn't fight it.

In cases where the prosecutor decides to fight it and the defense actually has to do battle in the court, it works about 1% of the time.

You could say that instead of the insanity defense winning 25% of the time the prosecutor agrees that the defendant is whacko about 25% of the time and lets the defense enter a plea which he agrees to.

When the prosecutor doesn't agree, the defense gets a not guilty verdict 1% of the time.....

Quote from: Demonoid;246389Oh, Ok then.

My last comment here will be this: The insanity defense is raised about 1% of the time.

IF the prosecutor and judge agree to it and do not fight it, it has a 25 or so percent success rate. So in about 25% of the cases it's raised in, the court agrees the perp is insane and doesn't fight it.

In cases where the prosecutor decides to fight it and the defense actually has to do battle in the court, it works about 1% of the time.

You could say that instead of the insanity defense winning 25% of the time the prosecutor agrees that the defendant is whacko about 25% of the time and lets the defense enter a plea which he agrees to.

When the prosecutor doesn't agree, the defense gets a not guilty verdict 1% of the time.....

And as I said before, in 90% of the cases where it is successful, the defendant has a previous history of mental illness, usually schizophrenia.

To illustrate how foolish you guys are being:

1990:
   San Diego Padres as a team had 5,554 at-bats and had 1,429 hits. The team average was .257.

Tony Gwynn had 573 at-bats and had 177 hits.

   I claim that, "Gwynn was really effective at the plate as he hit .309 (177 hits to 573 at-bats)."

Stormie and gang jump in and say, "Hardly! He wasn't that effective. He was only effective .032 of the time!"

I say, "Come again, that makes no sense at all. He hit just under .310... 573 at-bats and 177 hits."

Stormie and gang, "HAHAH! You don't know statistics! The total at-bats for the team is 5,554! Gwynn only hit 177 times. He suck with a .032 average! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, that makes no sense. The only at-bats that count, are the one he actually took... the 573."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAHA! Loser!!!! What percentage did come up to bat? .103 of the time! And then he only hit .310, clearly he was only effective .032 of the time! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, you don't count the times he wasn't up at bat when trying to determine his effectiveness. That just plain stupid."

Stormie and gang: "HAHA! You don't know stats!"

I say: "Man... he was effective .309..."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser... what percent did he come up to bat for the team?"

I say: "Who cares... we are determining his effectiveness. When he is not batting it doesn't really matter."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser! I've trap you with my intellectual powers!"

I say: "Ummm... sure you have."

Stormie and gang: "Look, I've won!!!! He responded."

I say: "Your still wrong."

Replace Gwynn with the insanity plea and we have what this conversation has become.

Stormie and company insist on using the total number of trials when the question being asked is how effective is a NGBRI plea. Instead of using the number of times NGBRI is invoked as a defense and how many times it works (roughly 25%) they insist on using the total number cases, even the ones where NGBRI is not being used.

Like the example of Gwynn, if we want to know how effective he was at the plate, we look at his attempts and his successes. In 1990, Gwynn had an effective batting average of .309. He didn't have an effective batting average of .032 because there were a total 5,554 total team at-bats. The total team attempts is useless for this measure, Gwynn didn't have all those at-bats.

Effectivness is the number of success over the number of NGBRI attempts (success/NGBRI attempts). It is not success over the NGBRI number of attempts + the number of attempts in all trials not using NGBRI (success/(NGBRI attempts + all other attempts).

Quote from: StormBringer;246392And as I said before, in 90% of the cases where it is successful, the defendant has a previous history of mental illness, usually schizophrenia.

And a lot of people who use it are poor, so they couldn't afford treatment for their illnesses or a good defense attorney.

Sometimes rich people use it, with much more success, of course, because they can afford much better defense lawyers and experts to come in and bury the jury under an avalanche of bullshit.

Quote from: CavScout;246396To illustrate how foolish you guys are being:

1990:
   San Diego Padres as a team had 5,554 at-bats and had 1,429 hits. The team average was .257.

Tony Gwynn had 573 at-bats and had 177 hits.

   I claim that, "Gwynn was really effective at the plate as he hit .309 (177 hits to 573 at-bats)."

Stormie and gang jump in and say, "Hardly! He wasn't that effective. He was only effective .032 of the time!"

I say, "Come again, that makes no sense at all. He hit just under .310... 573 at-bats and 177 hits."

Stormie and gang, "HAHAH! You don't know statistics! The total at-bats for the team is 5,554! Gwynn only hit 177 times. He suck with a .032 average! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, that makes no sense. The only at-bats that count, are the one he actually took... the 573."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAHA! Loser!!!! What percentage did come up to bat? .103 of the time! And then he only hit .310, clearly he was only effective .032 of the time! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, you don't count the times he wasn't up at bat when trying to determine his effectiveness. That just plain stupid."

Stormie and gang: "HAHA! You don't know stats!"

I say: "Man... he was effective .309..."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser... what percent did he come up to bat for the team?"

I say: "Who cares... we are determining his effectiveness. When he is not batting it doesn't really matter."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser! I've trap you with my intellectual powers!"

I say: "Ummm... sure you have."

Stormie and gang: "Look, I've won!!!! He responded."

I say: "Your still wrong."

Replace Gwynn with the insanity plea and we have what this conversation has become.

Stormie and company insist on using the total number of trials when the question being asked is how effective is a NGBRI plea. Instead of using the number of times NGBRI is invoked as a defense and how many times it works (roughly 25%) they insist on using the total number cases, even the ones where NGBRI is not being used.

Like the example of Gwynn, if we want to know how effective he was at the plate, we look at his attempts and his successes. In 1990, Gwynn had an effective batting average of .309. He didn't have an effective batting average of .032 because there were a total 5,554 total team at-bats. The total team attempts is useless for this measure, Gwynn didn't have all those at-bats.

Effectivness is the number of success over the number of NGBRI attempts (success/NGBRI attempts). It is not success over the NGBRI number of attempts + the number of attempts in all trials not using NGBRI (success/(NGBRI attempts + all other attempts).

Zzzzzzzzzzzz! Zzz! Zzzzzzzz!

Quote from: Demonoid;246400Zzzzzzzzzzzz! Zzz! Zzzzzzzz!

Is that your logic circuits overloading?

Quote from: CavScout;246404Is that your logic circuits overloading?

No, that's me snoring because trying to get anything thru to you is such an ultimately boring task as one must repeat the same things over and over and over...Zzzzz! Zzzz! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!