the L.A. Times has an interesting article on partial DNA searches, prompting three posts by Patterico (so far) and others by Eugene Volokh and Radley Balko. In a nutshell, John Puckett was convicted in 2004 of raping and murdering Diana Sylvester in 1972, mostly on account of a partial DNA match. Like many of the older DNA cases, it wasn’t possible to run a full DNA match, which is essentially failsafe, but just a partial one, which has roughly a 1 in 1.1 million chance of matching the wrong person.

Sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it? I mean really, if the odds of a false match are really 1.1 million to one, what are the chances they matched the wrong guy? Pretty high, actually, if you searched 1.1 million times. Buy enough lottery tickets, and you will win. In Puckett’s case, they didn’t search 1.1 million records but did search 338,000, resulting in roughly one-in-three odds that someone would get falsely matched, or about 1 in 4 that exactly one person would. The actual odds are a bit lower than that once you control for the uncertain odds that the killer was in fact in that database; presumably, if he was, he certainly would have gotten a hit, while the odds are only 1 in 3 that a second person also would have. Only one person was matched, so we can be certain that either Puckett was matched because he was the killer, or he got unlucky based on 1 in 4 odds, times whatever the odds were that the killer was not in the database. Without knowing the odds of the killer being in the database it’s tough to say how serious that error was in Puckett’s case, but easy to say exactly how serious it is in any case like Puckett’s where we don’t know for a fact that the defendant was the only match (or the only match to a person who doesn’t have a 100% airtight alibi): 1 in 3.

Some would argue that a partial DNA match that shows 1 in 1.1 million odds against a previously identified suspect, but only 1 in 3 odds against a suspect for whom the DNA semi-match was itself the basis of the suspicion, should not be admissible in court. I disagree. Anything that says you’re twice as likely to be guilty as innocent is highly probative of the charge. It is crucial, however, that such evidence be presented for what it is: enough to make you think he likely did it, but without other, unrelated corroborating evidence, not nearly enough to extinguish reasonable doubt.

I should note that the same math problem, known as the “prosecutor’s fallacy,” likely occurs every day even with full DNA matches. There, the error is equally lame in theory but harmless in practice. Without knowing exactly how long the odds have to be in order to surpass reasonable doubt, I am pretty confident that that number is somewhere north of 3 but south of 1 million. So if a prosecutor tells you that the odds of a false full match are 1 in 1 quintillion, but neglects to tell you that he found the guy by combing through a database of 1 million individuals, all that means is that the odds have fallen “all the way down” to 1 in 1 trillion. No big whoop.

California’s home schooling laws have sucked for as long as I can remember, but a lot of people are just now figuring that out. The Governator wants to amend the laws in question. Great idea, if he can pull it off. Otherwise, Californians who wish to home school their children basically have three options:

1. Flout the law, but do a better job raising and educating your kids than the Long family appears to have done for theirs, and trust that the Education Police will have more important things to do rather than go after you.
2. Waste a few thousand dollars and a year of your life taking worthless education classes to get a teaching credential.
3. Take advantage of a little-known U.S. immigration law that allows all Californians to immigrate here without a visa.

There’s been a fair amount of buzz in the blogosphere, with varying quality. Over at Q and O, Dale Franks has a pretty good piece, while his co-blogger McQ has a downright loopy one. Gabriel Malor strains logic conclude the law is no big deal since parents are free to file a “private school affidavit” the state is under no obligation to accept, and probably won’t. By that logic, he might as well argue that DC’s handgun ban is no big deal, either, as any DC resident can possess a handgun by becoming a cop.

Two questions for those who argue that waterboarding isn’t torture:

1. Would you support waterboarding as a punishment for any crimes?
2. If not, why not?

One side argues that waterboarding is torture, therefore, we must ban it. The other side argues that waterboarding is definitely not torture, because we need it.

To both sides of the debate: would it kill you to consider the possibility that waterboarding is torture, but we need it anyway? We shouldn’t be debating whether Khalid Sheik Mohammed was or wasn’t tortured. Instead, let’s debate whether it was better that (1) Khalid Sheik Mohammed be tortured or (2) Library Tower go the way of the World Trade Center. Those are the choices.

I think it’s important to re-elect George Allen. The NRA agrees with me, but I’m not sure why.

UPDATE: Countertop has more.

UPDATE x2: Then again, maybe the NRA doesn’t care that much after all. Ties always go to the guy who has a record (assuming, of course, that it’s good).

Via Justin Levine (the high profile radio producer Glenn Douchewald describes as an obscure right wing blogger), the California Court of Appeal has overruled the kooky district court ruling finding a “right” to gay marriage hidden in the emanations and penumbras of the California Constitution. That result should come as no surprise. At first, I was slighlty surprised to learn there had been a dissent, but far less so after learning that this dissent came from one of the most lawless judges on California’s bench, J. Anthony Kline. If the name “Kline” sounds familiar to you and you’re not from “the” O.C.,^* it should. Kline is the same judge who, in Morrow v. Hood Communications, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 924, 927, infamously refused “as a matter of conscience” to follow a Supreme Court precedent he didn’t like. This time around, his ruling is merely creative and lawless, not a willful violation of his ethical duties as a judge. Given his track record, I guess this constitutes progress, of sorts.

Fellow ex-Californian Captain Ed, ex-fellow Californian Dafydd ab Hugh, and Ron Coleman have more. The Ass. Press has less.

^*If the name “Judge Kline” sounds too familiar to you, and you are from Orange County, you may be confusing him with ex-judge Ronald Kline, who was caught with kiddie porn in 2001 and resigned the bench in 2002.

As one of the few living individuals who knows what it’s like to drown, I have to roll my eyes when people argue that simulated drowning, a.k.a. waterboarding, isn’t “torture.” Of course it is. That shouldn’t be the issue, though. The issue should be, should we do it? I think under the appropriate circumstances, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Not under the tortured theory that a certain brand of torture (say, an electrical surge to the testicles of less than 100 amps) isn’t really torture, but on theory that it at least hypothetically possible that a relatively innocuous form of torture (or, for that matter, a not-so-innocuous one) may be necessary to prevent a serious terror attack.

That said, I have to call B.S. on one particular attempt to create the hypothetical into the concrete. I refer, of course, to the widespread speculation (beginning with Brian Ross on Bill O’Reilly’s show) that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded for two minutes, thereby allowing us to foil the planned attack on Library Tower in Los Angeles. There’s only one problem with this theory: the Administration maintains that the plot was foiled in 2002, and KSM wasn’t captured until 2003. Is waterboarding so damned effective that it permits time travel?

UPDATE: See-Dubya says there were two separate attacks planned, one of which was thwarted sans KSM in 2002, the other thwarted with his useful information in 2003. I don’t know about that. Surely al-Qaeda would never strike the same place twice!

Today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch offers dueling op-eds on the marriage amendment, with businessman Ken Newsome arguing in favor of the amendment and liberal theologian Jack Spiro against. Or at least, I think that’s which side each is on. Each argument is so comically bad that I have to wonder if both individuals are really Rove-esque moles attempting to work for one side by discrediting the other.

• Shorter Newsome: Vote yes on the marriage amendment, ‘cuz Massachusetts and Vermont suck, and Virginia rocks.
• Shorter Spiro: Vote no on the marriage amendment, ‘cuz my Bible has everything crossed out except the parts about love, and besides, I served in the Air Force!

RTWT if you must, but be forewarned that your IQ will drop at least 10 points if you do. I don’t know if this effect is permanent or not, but why take the chance?

I’ve been informally boycotting Citgo for a long time, but have never blogged about it before because I was never really sure it was such a good idea. On the one hand, Patterico thinks it’s a good idea. On the other, so does Michelle Malkin. What to do?

William C. Kuebler, a defense attorney for Judge Advocate General’s Corps, has an interesting piece on why he thinks the military tribunals created by the Bush Administration prior to Hamdan should not be exhumed by statute. Kuebler makes a number of arguments, the strongest of which, in my opinion, is that whatever we think of the (alleged) jihadists, we still need a fair trial to determine that they are jihadists. I don’t doubt that Andrew McCarthy agrees with that basic premise, but he does himself and his cause no favors when he spews idiocy like this:

So, no, we don’t owe jihadists the same trial rights we owe any honorable combatants, much less our own troops. The very notion is an insult to those putting their lives on the line in our defense.

By that reasoning, McCarthy could just as easily have written this:

So, no, we don’t owe first-degree murderers the same trial rights we owe any honorable individiuals, much less law abiding U.S. citizens. The very notion is an insult to the men in blue who work tirelessly every day to keep our streets safe. No one in his right mind thinks a first-degree murderer would give you or me a fair trial, so why the hell should we offer him one, at taxpayer expense, no less? Only innocent people deserve fair trials.

Which, I might add, would be 100% true; only innocent people do deserve fair trials, to the extent they deserve to be put on trial at all (which they don’t, since they’re innocent). So if we really know in advance who is guillty and who is innocent, why bother with trials at all?

Nevertheless, despite his verbal blustering I do think McCarthy has the better argument. McCarthy himself seems to think that a mere accusation of terrorism ought to be enough to dispense with such procedural niceties as fair notice of the charges, representation by counsel, a right to conduct discovery or even … horror of all horrors … a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but fortunately, the Administration doesn’t. What the Administration does want to do is to prevent alleged terrorists (and let’s face it, many if not most of those alleged terrorists are terrorists) from getting their hands on sensitive classified information they can’t be trusted to “forget” once they cease to be alleged terrorists and in most cases start being convicted terrorists - and in some cases, wrongly acquitted ones. Nor does it want to set up the next Lynne Stewart to accidentally-on-purpose share classified information with the client, so instead, the Administration allows all information used against the client to be seen and used by his military lawyer. When dealing with highly sensitive classified information, that’s probably the best we can do.

Note however the absurdity that would result if we were to enter into a new McCarthy era, and alleged terrorists were not entitled to a presumption of innocence or to representation by counsel. That system would be a real bummer for any poor schmoe who ended up in custody and was unable to pay the going rate for a military lawyer. He could represent himself at trial, but he couldn’t see (or therefore rebut) any of the key evidence against him. He could engage any attorney willing to represent him for free, but that attorney woudln’t be allowed to see (or therefore rebut) any of the evidence against him, either. Thus, my tentative views are as follows:

1. In Washington, the Gang of Four (who, by no small coincidence, consist of all four Gang of Fourteen “Republicans” who are not up for re-election this fall) are neither leading nor following, and should therefore get out of the way.
2. At NRO, Andrew McCarthy isn’t leading or following, and should therefore get out of the way.