3 ms·
Nevertheless a trial by our peers is the best option we have in the long run. Think of alternatives, such as an algorithm, or a single person. It’s not great,
by ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Nevertheless a trial by our peers is the best option we have in the long run. Think of alternatives, such as an algorithm, or a single person.
It’s not great, sure, but people from the same circumstances judging a peer is as good as it gets.
- voxic11 6y agoIt's not as good as it gets at all. It's just a good fallback to have available for defendants should the rest of the system fail.
- anigbrowl 6y agoIt's a great option but it should not be the only option, in my view.
- baobabKoodaa 6y agoA single person (a judge) sounds better than a jury to me.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoPersonally I’d much rather be judged by 12 of my peers, where they must be unanimous in a conviction.
- baobabKoodaa 6y agoWe've seen time and time again how juries become "unanimous" in their conviction of innocent people. So I'm not sure why you're putting so much weight into 12 people coming to an agreement in a closed room. It happens.
- pmarreck 6y agoAs a software person who has to write tests validating his systems all the time, who was also a juror in a trial that was a travesty... it strikes me as extremely odd that we don't run "mock trial tests" on this of all systems, where the jury, judge and lawyers don't know it's a test. Let's just say I have SERIOUS doubts that this system satisfies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio If it's too difficult to fake evidence, we could randomize say 1% of the cases where the convicted is exonerated and given immunity and asked to anonymously report their actual guilt to a system in the interest of supporting a better legal system... yeah, this too would be difficult... hmmm... there must be a way to do this