4 ms·
This is a ridiculous study because it implies that the order of when cases are heard is randomly distributed. That is, a "hard" case is just as likely to be fir
by mark212 8y ago
This is a ridiculous study because it implies that the order of when cases are heard is randomly distributed. That is, a "hard" case is just as likely to be first in the morning session as it is to be fifth in an afternoon session, or vice versa.
The data is easily explained as judges taking clear case of leniency first, then doing the tough ones (that could go either way), and ruling on the clear cases of parole denials later in the session. The judges have hopefully done their homework in advance and have read the case files and petitions, so they come in with at least a rough sense for which cases are in each bucket. There's likely a significant degree of agreement on that metric among the members of the panel, so it's not surprising that cases are heard in that order: clear grants, ones that require discussion, and clear denials.
The lesson learned seems to me to be when the evidence shows a result this large, take a really hard look at your study before you publish it.
- claytonjy 8y agoThis is exactly what the criticism linked in TFA explores: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833.long http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833.long A related problem here is that even though the original study was bad for many reasons, it continues to be cited much more than the refutation.
- mark212 8y agoI missed that one. Read the other refutation.
- 99052882514569 8y agoAnd mentioned in podcasts by people[1] who really, seriously, obviously should know much better (based on how famous and otherwise competent they seem to be). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky
- GavinMcG 8y agoI haven't read the specifics of the study or refutations, but knowing how court scheduling works, it's likely closer to randomly distributed than not. Edit: just the scheduling, people. I'm not claiming the effect isn't due to that sort of thing, just that judges can't easily arrange their calendars so that "good" defendants are in the morning and "bad" ones are in the afternoon.
- danielvf 8y agoThe study was about Israeli parole boards, not US court cases. The study was flawed from the beginning because they incorrectly categorized favorable/unfavorable decisions. However, ignoring that: The daily court schedules were arranged to minimize the amount of time lawyers and prisoners spent waiting in court. Each lawyer would usually represent several prisoners, and would go through all of their clients consecutively. The court would schedule the lawyers and clients starting after meal breaks. After all lawyers and their clients that were scheduled for a block of time had gone through, then they would fill the remaining time until the next meal with cases by prisoners without lawyers. Cases with lawyers had a 35% favorable outcome rate, while cases without lawyers would have a 15% favorable outcome rate. In addition, each lawyer would present their best case first and worst cases last. So yes, the daily calendars were arranged such that the first prisoner after a meal break was extremely likely to get a favorable outcome, and the prisoner right before a meal break had only a 15% chance of a favorable outcome.
- mark212 8y agoCourt scheduling in US Courts isn't at all random. Even for cases on the same day, it's up to the judge to figure out in what order he or she will handle the appearances. And like this Israeli parole board, those with attorneys generally go first and it's not uncommon to have two or three matters grouped together and heard consecutively.