5 ms·

In all aspects of life unanimity is an excellent tool for making decisions. Abstention (in lieu of outright dissent) helps a lot too. Learning to negotiate in

In all aspects of life unanimity is an excellent tool for making decisions. Abstention (in lieu of outright dissent) helps a lot too. Learning to negotiate in a non-adversarial way is an undervalued skill. Slight more contentious is that it seems not unreasonable to expect unanimity from the Supreme Court itself.

devit 7y ago
Not sure about that: unanimity means that anyone can hold hostage the whole process and make arbitrary demands in exchange for their vote, so it really only works when everyone can be trusted to act in good faith or when it doesn't matter if the process is indefinitely blocked.
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  That’s a good point. For me, situations with a bad faith actor are edge cases and there are ways to remove bad actors from the decision making process that are separate to the decision making process itself. Not really refuting your point, and definitely thinking about it in specific contexts. For example a consistent bad faith actor on a team at work can expect to eventually be removed from the team, and avoiding hiring these people (or bringing them into decision making processes) is one of the goals of a good hiring process. It’s usually framed as “culture fit”, to drop another euphemism.
  - HelloMcFly 7y ago
    Politically, situations with a bad faith actor are not edge cases. That has a way of cascading down into all different aspects of society.
- mamon 7y ago
  Somewhat related example: requiring unanimity in parliament is what drove Poland to it's fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  That is one reason why each side and the court has a hand in selecting/disqualifying jurors. Neither side is likely be in love with the jury they get, but adversarial process introduces the fairest outcome we could expect.
watwut 7y ago
I think the opposite - in most aspects unanimity would fail spectacularly. First, it would be incredibly easy to abuse intentionally. Second, it would put everyone at mercy of the one inflexible person totally convinced he is always right. > Learning to negotiate in a non-adversarial way is an undervalued skill. Absolutely. But another important systematically undertaught skill is how to operate when facing bad actors, narcissistic and such. These people destroy teams and institutions, precisely because most people dont know how to deal with them and most advice about good communication pretends they dont exist.
- riversflow 7y ago
  >These people destroy teams and institutions, precisely because most people don't know how to deal with them and most advice about good communication pretends they don't exist. Aye. Do you(or anyone) have any resources/reading suggestions on how to be effective with this category of interaction? Particularly when it is coming from someone in a position of relative power? Another variant that seems distinct from straight narcissism—although it may be related or just a different manifestation—are people who, for lack of a more graceful way of saying it, only hear what they want to hear.
colde 7y ago
I am not sure it's a great way to go in this case. In Denmark for instance, there is no unanimous requirement for conviction, and having been on juries here, it would absolutely result in a lot of people going free. I have absolutely seen cases where one person is either on some principle or just convinced they are right refuse to view the person that is charged as guilty. I am not sure that really should prevent convinction. But i guess part of this also relies on the make up of the jury. If people in general is more likely to convict easier, it might make more sense to adjust that by requiring them to unanimous, in the reverse situation you might not want to require that because it becomes almost impossible to convict anyone.
- vidarh 7y ago
  Norway abandoned juries recently, and in a perfect example of why the last case decided by jury involved a case where the jury provably returned a verdict that was logically impossible (two questions that were dependent in such a way that one of the four combinations was impossible if they followed instructions; the jury returned the one impossible combination) The "new" system is a variation of what has long been used for non-jury cases, with some variation: A panel of judges where a minority are professional, legally trained judges and the majority are "lay judges" drawn from effectively the same pool as the juries. The total number of judges on the panel depends on the type of case and potential length of a sentence. They all deliberate together.
LunaSea 7y ago
The European Union would be a proof of the contrary.
JJMcJ 7y ago
The old saying (hence "men") was "Better a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted". One reason unanimity is a long standing principle.

devit 7y ago

Not sure about that: unanimity means that anyone can hold hostage the whole process and make arbitrary demands in exchange for their vote, so it really only works when everyone can be trusted to act in good faith or when it doesn't matter if the process is indefinitely blocked.

gorgoiler 7y ago
That’s a good point. For me, situations with a bad faith actor are edge cases and there are ways to remove bad actors from the decision making process that are separate to the decision making process itself. Not really refuting your point, and definitely thinking about it in specific contexts. For example a consistent bad faith actor on a team at work can expect to eventually be removed from the team, and avoiding hiring these people (or bringing them into decision making processes) is one of the goals of a good hiring process. It’s usually framed as “culture fit”, to drop another euphemism.
- HelloMcFly 7y ago
  Politically, situations with a bad faith actor are not edge cases. That has a way of cascading down into all different aspects of society.
mamon 7y ago
Somewhat related example: requiring unanimity in parliament is what drove Poland to it's fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
pnw_hazor 7y ago
That is one reason why each side and the court has a hand in selecting/disqualifying jurors. Neither side is likely be in love with the jury they get, but adversarial process introduces the fairest outcome we could expect.

watwut 7y ago

I think the opposite - in most aspects unanimity would fail spectacularly. First, it would be incredibly easy to abuse intentionally. Second, it would put everyone at mercy of the one inflexible person totally convinced he is always right. > Learning to negotiate in a non-adversarial way is an undervalued skill. Absolutely. But another important systematically undertaught skill is how to operate when facing bad actors, narcissistic and such. These people destroy teams and institutions, precisely because most people dont know how to deal with them and most advice about good communication pretends they dont exist.

riversflow 7y ago
>These people destroy teams and institutions, precisely because most people don't know how to deal with them and most advice about good communication pretends they don't exist. Aye. Do you(or anyone) have any resources/reading suggestions on how to be effective with this category of interaction? Particularly when it is coming from someone in a position of relative power? Another variant that seems distinct from straight narcissism—although it may be related or just a different manifestation—are people who, for lack of a more graceful way of saying it, only hear what they want to hear.

colde 7y ago

I am not sure it's a great way to go in this case. In Denmark for instance, there is no unanimous requirement for conviction, and having been on juries here, it would absolutely result in a lot of people going free. I have absolutely seen cases where one person is either on some principle or just convinced they are right refuse to view the person that is charged as guilty. I am not sure that really should prevent convinction. But i guess part of this also relies on the make up of the jury. If people in general is more likely to convict easier, it might make more sense to adjust that by requiring them to unanimous, in the reverse situation you might not want to require that because it becomes almost impossible to convict anyone.

vidarh 7y ago
Norway abandoned juries recently, and in a perfect example of why the last case decided by jury involved a case where the jury provably returned a verdict that was logically impossible (two questions that were dependent in such a way that one of the four combinations was impossible if they followed instructions; the jury returned the one impossible combination) The "new" system is a variation of what has long been used for non-jury cases, with some variation: A panel of judges where a minority are professional, legally trained judges and the majority are "lay judges" drawn from effectively the same pool as the juries. The total number of judges on the panel depends on the type of case and potential length of a sentence. They all deliberate together.

LunaSea 7y ago

The European Union would be a proof of the contrary.

JJMcJ 7y ago

The old saying (hence "men") was "Better a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted". One reason unanimity is a long standing principle.