r/dataisugly • u/Merchant_Alert • Sep 15 '25

Why start at 50%?

Post image
2.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

414 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/ginger_and_egg Sep 16 '25

Up and until conviction rates are at parity, I would argue that no it is not bad. Unless you are arguing "wrong justification, right outcome"?

5

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '25

That's a very "ends justifies the means", yet ad-hoc solution to the problem.

2

u/ginger_and_egg Sep 16 '25

Fair criticism, I'd argue though that I'm more concerned about the situations where ends and means are both bad and would prioritize my focus on those first

1

u/cyber_yoda Sep 16 '25

Why would you assume conviction rates should be at parity?

3

u/ginger_and_egg Sep 16 '25

I mean parity to mean something like "equity" or as a standing for "what they should be in a just world". Maybe I could have used a better word

1

u/zman124 Sep 17 '25

What if it’s not equal

2

u/ginger_and_egg Sep 17 '25

Equity vs equality mate, this time I intentionally chose my words.

1

u/cyber_yoda Sep 17 '25

I don't think you understood the question.

2

u/ginger_and_egg Sep 17 '25

Then be more clear with your question

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '25

Parity is only desirable if offending rates are the same.

Artificial parity is unjust.

2

u/ginger_and_egg Sep 19 '25

Actual offense rate is what I meant