3 ms·

Prosecutors need to be given percentages of the judgments they win for the U.S. government against corporations. It doesn't even have to be a big percentage, a

Prosecutors need to be given percentages of the judgments they win for the U.S. government against corporations. It doesn't even have to be a big percentage, and it ends the revolving door. Let our prosecutors make a fortune by ending criminal corporate behavior. As long as it's decided by a jury, they still won't waste their time with sketchy cases. If they retire early, so be it - there will be hundreds of people eager to fill the vacant positions.

dhnsmakala 8y ago
I agree with this, so many problems can be fixed with proper incentive structures.
- setr 8y ago
  The issue is the same as ML: the damn things will figure out how to misinterpret the incentive into something perverse, if given the chance. Even worse, they have the opportunity to influence the incentives, or change them outright, to give themselves the chance; and since the incentives have to change over time, to keep up with changes in the environment, any stable set of incentives is likely to become unstable in due time. So incentives are alone not the answer; it needs to also somehow be self-stabilizing, and self-correcting, and also not be wrong (because such a structure would be difficult to fix, as its designed to be difficult to edit in the first place !)
technofiend 8y ago
We have plenty of laws borne out of outrage and a desire to punish the guilty. They usually create even worse outcomes: look no farther than seizure laws created during the War on Drugs for a perfect example. Law enforcement can take any asset you have based on an allegation of criminality: not against you but the item itself! You get to prove the innocence of the item in court if you hope to reclaim it. Of course those abusing that law know very well that the defense is far dearer than the item itself, resulting in your abandoning any claim to the item and net profit to law enforcement. Now you want to reward prosecution with more perverse incentives? We used to say the power to tax was the power to destroy. These days the power to prosecute is the same, and sort of like I look at every piece of code with the idea "How will the cyber security red team abuse this?" we need to look at any potential law for abuse by over zealous prosecution.
- wtallis 8y ago
  Stuff like civil asset forfeiture is a problem because it weakens the due process requirements. Prosecutors would still be required to get a jury to convict before they could reap any rewards, so it would be a much harder system to abuse. (I wouldn't want prosecutors to get a cut from settlements, because then they could abusively intimidate defendants for profit.)
  - morgante 8y ago
    > I wouldn't want prosecutors to get a cut from settlements, because then they could abusively intimidate defendants for profit. So then prosecutors will refuse to ever settle cases, even when settling is the best choice for all parties except themselves.
    - tormeh 8y ago
      Settlements are a problem, though. This would probably be better than what the US has now.
      - grigjd3 8y ago
        Settlements are the result, not the cause. The problem most people face with the criminal justice system is how expensive it is to have competent representation. Not a dig at people who work as public defenders, they're just way overworked and without enough resources to do the job well.
- AngryData 8y ago
  The difference is most large corporations that are perceived as the largest problem all have their own legal teams, the average citizen does not and most couldn't afford a decent lawyer if they wanted. The cops win half the time just because they have a legal team and the other side doesn't and can't afford to hire one. If the average person had their own legal council then I don't think civil forfeiture would even be a problem, nobody would dare use it except in ironclad circumstances. Big business will have no problems shrugging off any legal fuckery mainly because the other side knows how much harder any conviction would be.
skookumchuck 8y ago
So we can have jackpot-style prosecutions, like the jackpot civil lawsuit system we have now? No thanks.
bhk 8y ago
That would be asking for prosecutorial misconduct. They'll make a fortune by prosecuting crimes they invent.
- awinder 8y ago
  That might not be the best strategy if you’re only compensated for wins. I could see a lot of downsides though — only going after slam dunk cases, hyper-focus on biggest potential payout cases, etc.
- pas 8y ago
  Aren't they doing that already to make their numbers look good? (Though of course a monetary incentive would probably shift the distribution from small easy to close cases to most profitable ones.)
docker_up 8y ago
This is an absolutely terrible incentive. They shouldn't be incentivized to seek criminal prosecutions, this will make them chase low-hanging fruit instead of chasing justice. They will become the equivalent of ambulance chasers. Pay them very well and have their ability to bring justice be the key to keeping them in their position.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  Agreeing with you but they're already incentivized to chase low hanging fruit.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
A good prosecutor will dismiss charges when they see there is insufficient evidence of guilt. What you propose will create the harmful incentive to always try a case. People lose years of their life, and tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, when defending themselves from criminal charges. So even if the person is ultimately acquitted, they will be still be damaged from the process. And the government wins 93% of cases brought to trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States So anyone caught on the wrong end of a zealous prosecutor will be in big trouble. The DoJ already creates harmful incentives by tracking how many convictions it gets, and striving to get more. That creates an institutonal culture that rewards aggressive prosecutors.
pseingatl 8y ago
There's no "revolving door" for prosecutors. Time was that career prosecutors were in the minority (DoJ plus US Atty's offices). That is no longer the case. The result is that there's less experienced new blood and the groupthink of the inevitable bubble.
awinder 8y ago
I feel like you could just pay higher salaries with the same effect (and maybe less of the downsides of incentive structuring). But I agree on the premise, the revolving door exists because of wildly different compensation levels for the same job class / qualifications. This has bugged me for a while. America is obsessive with one component of cost, but total cost of ownership suffers all the time because of it.
75dvtwin 8y ago
> Prosecutors need to be given percentages of the judgments they win for the U.S. government against corporations. This would be horrible, in my view. A legal system with selective outrage, fueled by monetary (or other power/political) incentives -- is a sure way to a broken and unfair justice system (which, in turn, would have disastrous consequences). To make a common person equivalent, in legal power, to a corporation -- (so that a common consumer can fight effectively against a potential injustice), what simply needs to be done -- is legislating a common contract law framework, so that a corporation cannot choose to a specific/tailored contract terms/escape clauses when providing service/product to a consumer. (same for environmental accountability). So that when I buy products (computers, health services, cars, etc) -- The agreement and liabilities I accept, are the same regardless of the business I created the contract with. This way, reliance on mega bucks lawyers to 'favorably interpret' and to confuse jury -- will be eliminated.
- pas 8y ago
  Consumer Protection Laws are many and varies across jurisdictions, they are rather tough in various parts of the globe.

dhnsmakala 8y ago

I agree with this, so many problems can be fixed with proper incentive structures.

setr 8y ago
The issue is the same as ML: the damn things will figure out how to misinterpret the incentive into something perverse, if given the chance. Even worse, they have the opportunity to influence the incentives, or change them outright, to give themselves the chance; and since the incentives have to change over time, to keep up with changes in the environment, any stable set of incentives is likely to become unstable in due time. So incentives are alone not the answer; it needs to also somehow be self-stabilizing, and self-correcting, and also not be wrong (because such a structure would be difficult to fix, as its designed to be difficult to edit in the first place !)

technofiend 8y ago

We have plenty of laws borne out of outrage and a desire to punish the guilty. They usually create even worse outcomes: look no farther than seizure laws created during the War on Drugs for a perfect example. Law enforcement can take any asset you have based on an allegation of criminality: not against you but the item itself! You get to prove the innocence of the item in court if you hope to reclaim it. Of course those abusing that law know very well that the defense is far dearer than the item itself, resulting in your abandoning any claim to the item and net profit to law enforcement. Now you want to reward prosecution with more perverse incentives? We used to say the power to tax was the power to destroy. These days the power to prosecute is the same, and sort of like I look at every piece of code with the idea "How will the cyber security red team abuse this?" we need to look at any potential law for abuse by over zealous prosecution.

wtallis 8y ago
Stuff like civil asset forfeiture is a problem because it weakens the due process requirements. Prosecutors would still be required to get a jury to convict before they could reap any rewards, so it would be a much harder system to abuse. (I wouldn't want prosecutors to get a cut from settlements, because then they could abusively intimidate defendants for profit.)
- morgante 8y ago
  > I wouldn't want prosecutors to get a cut from settlements, because then they could abusively intimidate defendants for profit. So then prosecutors will refuse to ever settle cases, even when settling is the best choice for all parties except themselves.
  - tormeh 8y ago
    Settlements are a problem, though. This would probably be better than what the US has now.
    - grigjd3 8y ago
      Settlements are the result, not the cause. The problem most people face with the criminal justice system is how expensive it is to have competent representation. Not a dig at people who work as public defenders, they're just way overworked and without enough resources to do the job well.
AngryData 8y ago
The difference is most large corporations that are perceived as the largest problem all have their own legal teams, the average citizen does not and most couldn't afford a decent lawyer if they wanted. The cops win half the time just because they have a legal team and the other side doesn't and can't afford to hire one. If the average person had their own legal council then I don't think civil forfeiture would even be a problem, nobody would dare use it except in ironclad circumstances. Big business will have no problems shrugging off any legal fuckery mainly because the other side knows how much harder any conviction would be.

skookumchuck 8y ago

So we can have jackpot-style prosecutions, like the jackpot civil lawsuit system we have now? No thanks.

bhk 8y ago

That would be asking for prosecutorial misconduct. They'll make a fortune by prosecuting crimes they invent.

awinder 8y ago
That might not be the best strategy if you’re only compensated for wins. I could see a lot of downsides though — only going after slam dunk cases, hyper-focus on biggest potential payout cases, etc.
pas 8y ago
Aren't they doing that already to make their numbers look good? (Though of course a monetary incentive would probably shift the distribution from small easy to close cases to most profitable ones.)

docker_up 8y ago

This is an absolutely terrible incentive. They shouldn't be incentivized to seek criminal prosecutions, this will make them chase low-hanging fruit instead of chasing justice. They will become the equivalent of ambulance chasers. Pay them very well and have their ability to bring justice be the key to keeping them in their position.

grigjd3 8y ago
Agreeing with you but they're already incentivized to chase low hanging fruit.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

A good prosecutor will dismiss charges when they see there is insufficient evidence of guilt. What you propose will create the harmful incentive to always try a case. People lose years of their life, and tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, when defending themselves from criminal charges. So even if the person is ultimately acquitted, they will be still be damaged from the process. And the government wins 93% of cases brought to trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States So anyone caught on the wrong end of a zealous prosecutor will be in big trouble. The DoJ already creates harmful incentives by tracking how many convictions it gets, and striving to get more. That creates an institutonal culture that rewards aggressive prosecutors.

pseingatl 8y ago

There's no "revolving door" for prosecutors. Time was that career prosecutors were in the minority (DoJ plus US Atty's offices). That is no longer the case. The result is that there's less experienced new blood and the groupthink of the inevitable bubble.

awinder 8y ago

I feel like you could just pay higher salaries with the same effect (and maybe less of the downsides of incentive structuring). But I agree on the premise, the revolving door exists because of wildly different compensation levels for the same job class / qualifications. This has bugged me for a while. America is obsessive with one component of cost, but total cost of ownership suffers all the time because of it.

75dvtwin 8y ago

> Prosecutors need to be given percentages of the judgments they win for the U.S. government against corporations. This would be horrible, in my view. A legal system with selective outrage, fueled by monetary (or other power/political) incentives -- is a sure way to a broken and unfair justice system (which, in turn, would have disastrous consequences). To make a common person equivalent, in legal power, to a corporation -- (so that a common consumer can fight effectively against a potential injustice), what simply needs to be done -- is legislating a common contract law framework, so that a corporation cannot choose to a specific/tailored contract terms/escape clauses when providing service/product to a consumer. (same for environmental accountability). So that when I buy products (computers, health services, cars, etc) -- The agreement and liabilities I accept, are the same regardless of the business I created the contract with. This way, reliance on mega bucks lawyers to 'favorably interpret' and to confuse jury -- will be eliminated.

pas 8y ago
Consumer Protection Laws are many and varies across jurisdictions, they are rather tough in various parts of the globe.