I feel really uncomfortable about this question. The assumption seems way out of proportion😢 20% women killed by their husbands, and I'm answering this question while don't even have a girlfriend

Screw probability/possibility. Get the facts

@jespersh this's the image compression from devRant☹

Read closely. Not 20% of all women, only 20% of those women who were murdered.

Sample question just for stats class and not supposed to model real life, I hope?

@tokumei we can only hope

To be fair, men are one of the primary causes of death for women. The statistics paint a very scary picture.

@Root If the stats are scary for women, they are even worse for men: men are much more often victims of deadly violence than women. Violence by other men. And that's even without counting war.

Just googled the stats for 2012 as example, given by the UN Office for Drugs and Crime. About 500k people killed world-wide, 80% men. Violence at home accounts for 63k casualties, out of which 44k were women.

So women are much safer than men, but among the remaining risk situations, violence at home is a major one that accounts for nearly half of the victims.

@Root also, in 2012, there were 7 billion people with a mortality rate of 7.76 per 1000, that makes 54 million dead for all causes. Assuming 50% women, that is 27 million women. The 100.000 women killed from above make 0.37%. The killed ones at home make 0.16%.

There is no way to call this a major cause of death for women.

Compare that to 13% because of heart disease and 12.4% heart stroke. Even road injury far down the list with 2.4% is still 15 times more than being killed at home. Or something like diabetes mellitus - 17 times more.

No, the only statistic here that matters is the 1/1000 of abusers that go on to kill their wives.

His abuse makes him .1% more likely to have been the murderer.

@seraphimsystems not so fast, conditioned probabilities are counter-intuitive. Because, in those 999/1000 cases that the defence is referring to, you usually don't have a corpse lying around.

@Fast-Nop still doesn't matter. 100% of the time people who are dead have stopped breathing. Does that mean that this person holding their breath is now legally dead?

@seraphimsystems it does matter because most of the 999/1000 cases are different from this one since nobody got killed at all.

Your mistake here is that you think p(a | b) == p(b | a). But the probability of a when given b is not the same as the probability of b when given a.

@Fast-Nop I get the math, odds are 56% he killed her... But it's out of context and we can't convict based on probabilities.

@tokumei @Fast-Nop there’s a horrible real life case, my friends argue with small things in their room, like another young couples, then their room mate called police. But in the New Zealand, this is a feminism country. They take the male in jail overnight, no matter what... in the end, there’s no charge, but he have to attend counselling for 3 months.

@sunfishcc lol and no counselling for her?! That's next level shit. After teaching men that is is a bloody stupid idea to have children in Western countries, the next step seems to be making clear that already having a relationship is stupid.

@Fast-Nop no. By New Zealand law, (I’m not sure the full details, don’t quote me) when they consider it’s domestic violence, even the female started, the male cannot fight back, even self defence.
The police will listen to female, and take the male in immediately. (Yes, you have to hire layer for bail, and you finger prints will on record no matter what)
The male has the full responsibility to provide evidence for self defence. In most of the case, it’s very hard.
So if you piss off your girlfriend, and she want money from you. Then, good luck 😉

@sunfishcc that violates the basic justice principle that guilt has to be proven, not innocence, and its not compatible with basic human rights because of sexism. In such a legislation, I'd not have a relationship.

Actually, I'd leave such a shithole.

@Fast-Nop their logic is based on, male usually makes more money, woman are the weaker side, domestic violence is hard to proof. As the result, male have full responsibility to proof everything, and what female said can be used as evidence after she sweared to bible.
This is a crazy feminism country.
Btw, if take a look on New Zealand prime minster Jacinda Ardern. She took parental leave as PM, her husband is a full time stay home dad, she used tax money for bring her husband, child and nanny to UN...
it’s actually hilarious 😂

@sunfishcc That men earn more in a relationship is because women usually don't date down. And for self-defence, that is limited in Western countries. Since an average woman is no opponent for an average man, there is no need to do serious harm. This would be punishable as excessive self defence anyway.

Judging someone guilty because someone else swears on the bible and just because of their respective sex, that's pretty much what medieval countries like Saudi-Arabia have in reversed roles. However, the opposite of a shitty idea is usually also a shitty idea.