How much power should statistical data on circumstantial events have in forming legislation?
2006-11-01 23:00:03 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I intentionally neglecting giving an example to see which ones those answering this question could come up with. I have one example in mind, but I'm trying to not overly prejudice the question.
2006-11-01 23:18:25 · update #1
neglected.
2006-11-01 23:40:17 · update #2
This question would be a lot better if you had included some examples to see what you are getting at.
I think statistical data is risky at best. It makes a large body of assumptions, and those assumptions are not usually spelled out when legislators or voters (in the case of ballot propositions) look at the stats.
Now as to "circumstantial events," I am at a loss to know what you mean. All events are circumstantial; this does not tell us what sort of events or what sort of circumstances you mean to include. Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence that points one way, but could be interpreted some other way.
It is very hard to prove a criminal case on circumstantial evidence because of the high standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people have no such high standards when they study statistics. If something is like 90% or 95%, then possibly you are reasonable in taking those stats seriously. But often legislators and voters get little more than a scant majority in the figures offered, and those could be off by quite a bit. We need to know the complete design of the survey before we can take statistics seriously, and we seldom get that much detail.
Add to this the fact that statistics are never a valid indicator, in themselves, of what is right or wrong, but only what is popular or unpopular. Think and act independently, and vote accordingly.
2006-11-01 23:15:35 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Statistical data based on hard evidence such as how many people die a year due to drunk driving, sure. It is no more than a count which is going to be fairly reliable and accurate. Data compiled of polls and surveys, no, to big a margin of error. I am not sure how circumstantial an event can be. An event either happened or it didn't. What would be circumstantial would be the evidence or belief of how the event happened, not the event itself
2006-11-02 07:38:28 · answer #2 · answered by mark g 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is only one way of creating legislation. How much will it cost to enforce. Constitutional test will not favor this even if it is a fact.
There should be more than this.
2006-11-02 07:43:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋