6 ms·

I don't remember much from my operating systems class, but I do remember that "shortest job first" is a more efficient scheduling algorithm than "longest job fi

I don't remember much from my operating systems class, but I do remember that "shortest job first" is a more efficient scheduling algorithm than "longest job first". I cannot fathom why anyone would want to schedule 12 cases that will likely take 15-30 minutes each after the one that will almost certainly take more than 4 hours. I understand that type of scheduling in hospitals, because the complex, time-consuming case is probably the guy who will die if not treated immediately, while the simple cases can afford to wait, but no one is going to die or go broke if their court appearance gets pushed back a week because too many "easy" cases suddenly popped up and pre-empted it.

kd0amg 9y ago
Is it really that common for a court to have no (or only a few) "easy" cases pending?
- wahern 9y ago
  Not sure what you're getting at. But, FWIW, First, the original study in question involved Israeli parole board hearings. I'm not sure if that augurs in favor of few easy cases or many easy cases. Second, at least in the United States and regarding both general criminal and civil matters, there are few easy cases in terms of how judicial resources are spent. The easy cases would have pled out or settled, with the courts only nominally involved as a matter of process. Trials are arduous time sinks, both inside and outside the court room; few cases go to trial. On the other, if we're talking about discrete hearings in front a judge, most would be easy. That's because most hearings are for motions or other orders (e.g. approval of a plea deal or settlement), and the complex aspects of those would have largely been hashed out between the parties, in the filings, or in the judge's chambers. That applies for all cases. A trial might take one or two extended courtroom proceedings, but have been preceded (and even succeeded!) by a dozen quick hearings on motions and other process.
conanbatt 9y ago
You could make the point that the shortest cases are the least valuable (since the chances that they produce a positive result are very slim). If your goal is to maximize freedom, then complex first could have a much higher return rate than easy first.
tpeo 9y ago
Maybe they're trying to minimize the number of hours needed to go through the cases yet to be decided. So whenever some free time comes up, they're able to go through that backlog easily. It could also be that, just as in medicine, harder cases are more relevant than easier cases. If the amount of effort each side puts into their case has any positive relationship with the value with what is at stake, solving harder cases first would free up whatever is at stake and make it available to society again.
cecilpl2 9y ago
It's akin to a good algorithm for avoiding memory fragmentation - allocate your largest blocks first. Assuming you need a contiguous block of time for each case, you should schedule the longest case that you expect to complete in the time available, leaving a bunch of cases you can easily slot into whatever time is left.
Bartweiss 9y ago
The big thing missing from that assessment is case variability. The clear-cut case with a plea bargain already assessed is short, but also predictable. If you schedule it at 11:50 AM, you'll still go to lunch at 12:00. The case that's going to take 16 different motions with unclear evidence isn't just long, it's unpredictable. Even if such cases take an average of one hour, you don't want to put them at 11:00 AM. Shorter tasks are also easier to reschedule. Pushing three short cases from before lunch to after is much lower-impact than interrupting one big case midway through. So I don't think your assessment is wrong, but there're other factors deciding this.
- Retric 9y ago
  You impact fewer people by delaying a long case vs 5 short ones. But, you are likely to forget details and/or spend lunch thinking about a case that's open which is IMO more motivation.
jdmichal 9y ago
They aren't directly comparable. OS scheduling assumes 100% availability of the resources for its own purposes, with no external interruptions. However, instead assume that the processor is only available for a couple 4-hour time slices a day. And, for reasons, starting a task that cannot be finished should generally be avoided. Now, if you need an estimated 4 hours to finish a task, that task must be scheduled at the beginning. If you take the alternative and schedule smaller tasks first, say they all take 2 hours. Well, you can't plug a 4-hour task into a 2-hour slot, so you just wasted 2 hours of time.
prostoalex 9y ago
Unlike the computing power, the mental energy does not stay constant throughout the day. Sedentary work style, mental workload from processing the cases and I guess [lack of] nutrition or hydration all contribute to fatigue. The bet here is that simpler cases require less mental energy and can be done on autopilot.

kd0amg 9y ago

Is it really that common for a court to have no (or only a few) "easy" cases pending?

wahern 9y ago
Not sure what you're getting at. But, FWIW, First, the original study in question involved Israeli parole board hearings. I'm not sure if that augurs in favor of few easy cases or many easy cases. Second, at least in the United States and regarding both general criminal and civil matters, there are few easy cases in terms of how judicial resources are spent. The easy cases would have pled out or settled, with the courts only nominally involved as a matter of process. Trials are arduous time sinks, both inside and outside the court room; few cases go to trial. On the other, if we're talking about discrete hearings in front a judge, most would be easy. That's because most hearings are for motions or other orders (e.g. approval of a plea deal or settlement), and the complex aspects of those would have largely been hashed out between the parties, in the filings, or in the judge's chambers. That applies for all cases. A trial might take one or two extended courtroom proceedings, but have been preceded (and even succeeded!) by a dozen quick hearings on motions and other process.

conanbatt 9y ago

You could make the point that the shortest cases are the least valuable (since the chances that they produce a positive result are very slim). If your goal is to maximize freedom, then complex first could have a much higher return rate than easy first.

tpeo 9y ago

Maybe they're trying to minimize the number of hours needed to go through the cases yet to be decided. So whenever some free time comes up, they're able to go through that backlog easily. It could also be that, just as in medicine, harder cases are more relevant than easier cases. If the amount of effort each side puts into their case has any positive relationship with the value with what is at stake, solving harder cases first would free up whatever is at stake and make it available to society again.

cecilpl2 9y ago

It's akin to a good algorithm for avoiding memory fragmentation - allocate your largest blocks first. Assuming you need a contiguous block of time for each case, you should schedule the longest case that you expect to complete in the time available, leaving a bunch of cases you can easily slot into whatever time is left.

Bartweiss 9y ago

The big thing missing from that assessment is case variability. The clear-cut case with a plea bargain already assessed is short, but also predictable. If you schedule it at 11:50 AM, you'll still go to lunch at 12:00. The case that's going to take 16 different motions with unclear evidence isn't just long, it's unpredictable. Even if such cases take an average of one hour, you don't want to put them at 11:00 AM. Shorter tasks are also easier to reschedule. Pushing three short cases from before lunch to after is much lower-impact than interrupting one big case midway through. So I don't think your assessment is wrong, but there're other factors deciding this.

Retric 9y ago
You impact fewer people by delaying a long case vs 5 short ones. But, you are likely to forget details and/or spend lunch thinking about a case that's open which is IMO more motivation.

jdmichal 9y ago

They aren't directly comparable. OS scheduling assumes 100% availability of the resources for its own purposes, with no external interruptions. However, instead assume that the processor is only available for a couple 4-hour time slices a day. And, for reasons, starting a task that cannot be finished should generally be avoided. Now, if you need an estimated 4 hours to finish a task, that task must be scheduled at the beginning. If you take the alternative and schedule smaller tasks first, say they all take 2 hours. Well, you can't plug a 4-hour task into a 2-hour slot, so you just wasted 2 hours of time.

prostoalex 9y ago

Unlike the computing power, the mental energy does not stay constant throughout the day. Sedentary work style, mental workload from processing the cases and I guess [lack of] nutrition or hydration all contribute to fatigue. The bet here is that simpler cases require less mental energy and can be done on autopilot.