CDN legal system.

[Down by the River]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Middle east, China, India, they all say hello to the fact that deterrence works, given that such correlative data exists from these places. 

There is no evidence presented. Its a bunch of random, self-serving, incidental data, not an analysis based of all data. Its effectively whats called 'data mining'. 
Problem with deterrence working, is determining what exactly 'deterrence' constitutes. Some would say chain gangs are a part of deterrence that our legal system 'chickens out of'.

Again. No sources. No evidence, just your opinion. Even your criticism of my sources is based on opinion, not evidence. How do you know the data are self-serving? I don't know what you mean by random. I don't know how you could expect any study to be based on "all data". There is no study in the universe based on "all data". Again, I doubt you actually read the sources. 

 

Also, I don't think you know what data mining is. 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Again. No sources. No evidence, just your opinion.

Source have already been pointed. Unless you have the mechanism to access Chinese legal history without encounting paywall, be my guest. 

2 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Even your criticism of my sources is based on opinion, not evidence.

Nothing 'opinion' about pointing out that the data considered is considered insufficient. I can easily demonstrate this with basic math set theory that fails your probabilistic sampling modeling QA standard. 

2 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

How do you know the data are self-serving?

I don't know what you mean by random.

Loaded study. Pre-concieved study. Such exist. This is one by a 50% probability. Evidence: failure of standard mathematical benchmarks to draw mathematically valid data. 

 

[Down by the River]

Just now, canuckistani said:

Source have already been pointed. Unless you have the mechanism to access Chinese legal history without encounting paywall, be my guest. 

Nothing 'opinion' about pointing out that the data considered is considered insufficient. I can easily demonstrate this with basic math set theory that fails your probabilistic sampling modeling QA standard. 

Loaded study. Pre-concieved study. Such exist. This is one by a 50% probability. Evidence: failure of standard mathematical benchmarks to draw mathematically valid data. 

 

Give me the exact reference. 

 

It is opinion. Saying that something is insufficient isn't the same as showing why it is. Go ahead and demonstrate it  if it is that easy.

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

Give me the exact reference. 

 

It is opinion. Saying that something is insufficient isn't the same as showing why it is. Go ahead and demonstrate it  if it is that easy.

You wish to see mathematical demonstration of why the sample space cited in the entire article is so insignificant, that its effectively data mining ?