New Republic writer Josh Patashnik responds to the claim that the odds of being struck by lightning are lower than the odds of being wrongfully executed. While he is right this is an absurd claim, he is wrong about why.

Patashnik argues that the odds of being wrongfully executed are actually greater than the odds of being struck by lightning. This is actually incorrect for two reasons.

First, he should not multiply the odds by 1000. The odds for lightning casualties (injuries+deaths) are based on the rate of number of casualties out of the whole US population, not out of the entire number of outdoor trips taken by the US population.

Second, he should compare the odds of being struck ...

New Republic writer Josh Patashnik responds to the claim that the odds of being struck by lightning are lower than the odds of being wrongfully executed. While he is right this is an absurd claim, he is wrong about why.

Patashnik argues that the odds of being wrongfully executed are actually greater than the odds of being struck by lightning. This is actually incorrect for two reasons.

First, he should not multiply the odds by 1000. The odds for lightning casualties (injuries+deaths) are based on the rate of number of casualties out of the whole US population, not out of the entire number of outdoor trips taken by the US population.

Second, he should compare the odds of being struck by lightning (for the whole US population) to the odds of being wrongfull executed (for the whole US population). Instead, he compares the odds of being struck by lightning (for the whole US population) to the odds of being wrongfully executed (for the population on death row. He uses the situation in Illinois to estimate that a substantial proportion of people on death row were wrongfully convicted.

Let's make a proper comparison.

In 2000, there were approximately 400 reported lightning causalities (deaths+injuries), out of a population of 280,000,000. That means the odds of being struck by lighting in 2000 are 1/700,000.

In 2000, we execited 85 people. Let's assume that all of them were wrongfully executed. Out of a population of 280,000,000, the odds of being wrongfully executed are 1/3,294,117. Even if 100% of people being executed were wrongfully convicted, the odds of being wrongfully executed are still much lower than the odds of being struck by lightning.

It should be evident that claiming that being struck by lightning is more common than wrongful executions is not at all...

Let's make a proper comparison.

In 2000, there were approximately 400 reported lightning causalities (deaths+injuries), out of a population of 280,000,000. That means the odds of being struck by lighting in 2000 are 1/700,000.

In 2000, we execited 85 people. Let's assume that all of them were wrongfully executed. Out of a population of 280,000,000, the odds of being wrongfully executed are 1/3,294,117. Even if 100% of people being executed were wrongfully convicted, the odds of being wrongfully executed are still much lower than the odds of being struck by lightning.

It should be evident that claiming that being struck by lightning is more common than wrongful executions is not at all a compelling claim. Think about it: imagine all of the people we executed were actually innocent. Would you say that's acceptable, because you are still less likely to be wrongfully killed than to be struck by lightning? That is the absurd claim.

I wonder how it would come out if it were calculated in probabilities rather than odds.

No problem!

Odds are just expressed as a probability divided by (1- probability). Or, the number of successes divided by the number of failures.

Being struck by lightning:
279,999,600 people were not struck by lightning
400 people were struck by lightning

Probability: 400/280,000,000 or .0000014 (.00014% - so don't worry, mousie!)

Odds: 279,999,600/400 = 700,000

Being executed by the government:
279,999,915 people were not executed
85 people were executed.

Probability that a US resident will be executed: 85/280,000,000 = .0000003 (.00003%)
Odds: 279,999,915/85 = 3,294,117

What is t...

I wonder how it would come out if it were calculated in probabilities rather than odds.

No problem!

Odds are just expressed as a probability divided by (1- probability). Or, the number of successes divided by the number of failures.

Being struck by lightning:
279,999,600 people were not struck by lightning
400 people were struck by lightning

Probability: 400/280,000,000 or .0000014 (.00014% - so don't worry, mousie!)

Odds: 279,999,600/400 = 700,000

Being executed by the government:
279,999,915 people were not executed
85 people were executed.

Probability that a US resident will be executed: 85/280,000,000 = .0000003 (.00003%)
Odds: 279,999,915/85 = 3,294,117

What is the probability that someone executed was actually innocent? Who knows. If at least one of the 85 people killed in 2000 were innocent (which I think is probable, for reasons given by Patashnik), then the probability is at least 1/85 = .012 (1.2%). I think that's too high.

Yeah, what a bizarre argument. Not to mention the fact that he goes from a 1/700,000 chance of being struck by lightning in general to a 1/7,000,000 chance of being struck by lighting if you add the assumption that a person goes outside a thousand times a year. Even if that were a reasonable adjustment to make -- which I can't see why it would be -- he should multiply, not divide, the odds by 1000 if it were to make any sense. He lost any confidence I might have had in him right at that point. -- Or am I misunderstanding something?

Anyhow, though, Josh is right. The real issue is -- just because something is less likely to happen to you than being struck by lightning doesn't make it magical...

Yeah, what a bizarre argument. Not to mention the fact that he goes from a 1/700,000 chance of being struck by lightning in general to a 1/7,000,000 chance of being struck by lighting if you add the assumption that a person goes outside a thousand times a year. Even if that were a reasonable adjustment to make -- which I can't see why it would be -- he should multiply, not divide, the odds by 1000 if it were to make any sense. He lost any confidence I might have had in him right at that point. -- Or am I misunderstanding something?

Anyhow, though, Josh is right. The real issue is -- just because something is less likely to happen to you than being struck by lightning doesn't make it magically O.K. You're also less likely to be killed by a terrorist than to be struck by lightning, but I don't see these same people going around arguing that terrorism is therefore no problem.