4 ms·

I believe the original studies were shown to be faulty because they didn’t account for the fact that the cases were ordered. Less severe cases were seen first,

by bumby 2y ago

I believe the original studies were shown to be faulty because they didn’t account for the fact that the cases were ordered. Less severe cases were seen first, which meant the more severe cases (ie those with more severe penalties) were shown later. “Danziger etal. rely crucially on the assumption that the order of the cases is random and, thus, exogenous to the decision-making process. This assumption has been forcefully challenged. For a short and very critical reply in PNAS, Keren Weinshall-Margel and John Shapard analyzed the data of the original study—as well as other self-collected data—and conducted additional interviews with the court personnel involved.Footnote 51 They point out that the order of the cases is not random: The panel tries to deal with all cases from one prison before a break, before then moving to the cases of the next prison after a break. Most importantly, though, requests from prisoners who are not represented by a lawyer are typically dealt with at the end of each session. So, prisoners without legal representation are less likely to receive a favorable decision compared to those with legal representation.Footnote 52 Additionally, lawyers often represent several inmates and decide on the order in which the cases are presented—it might well be possible that they start with the strongest cases” [1] Chatziathanasiou, K., 2022. Beware the lure of narratives:“hungry judges” should not motivate the use of “artificial intelligence” in law. German Law Journal, 23(4), pp.452-464.

ffhhj 2y ago
> the fact that the cases were ordered. Less severe cases were seen first, which meant the more severe cases (ie those with more severe penalties) were shown later. Isn't that order creating a bias for the judge? Should the cases be randomized instead?
- bumby 2y ago
  Yes, in the words of the linked paper it injects exogenous decision making. In other words, the decision is based on more than just the judge so we can’t conclude the discrepancy is due to the judge’s personal bias.
  - cptaj 2y ago
    Yeah thats the original point but I think he means aside from that, the order itself also drops a suggestion to the judge as to the nature of the case before hearing it. The order itself might be injecting a subconscious bias to the judge.
    - bumby 2y ago
      That’s good point. The authors of the original papers the “hungry judge” idea also did work on what they call “priming” which would include what you suggest. I don’t know if that has been replicated though.
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        This is not an example of the priming effect, which describes how one stimulus affects the reaction to a different stimulus, but is simply an example of suggestion for a common stimulus. The priming effect itself has come under fire in recent years for failure to replicate. Examples of priming include what was studied in the Priming Intelligence study, which primed groups of participants with the idea of either professors or the idea of hooligans, then tested how they performed on an intelligence test. It purported to discover that those primed with the idea of professors performed better. This is an example of a widely discussed priming study that has failed replication.
    - kbenson 2y ago
      I think maybe the judges can tell how important cases are based on the charges. I don't think the implication is that someone is somehow reviewing the case prior to it being heard and using some judgement based on some (likely unknown as it has not yet been presented) evidence to order them, but that charges that carry less penalty or that are are already classified as lesser (i.e. misdemeanor compared to felony) are sorted prior to ones that are not. I don't think the people sorting the cases (which could be the judges themselves) have any additional information that the judge doesn't readily have available, so I'm not sure there's much room for bias of a substantial nature.
    - 2y ago
- mvkel 2y ago
  I wonder if this butts up against the fourth and fifteenth amendments, which touch on due process and justice not being delayed unnecessarily. Randomness introduces inefficiency which implies delay
  - kelipso 2y ago
    > Randomness introduces inefficiency That's highly dependent on the situation. Ordering can introduce delays or inefficiencies in many situations.
    - he0001 2y ago
      Can you give some examples?
      - nine_k 2y ago
        Putting harder cases to the end of the queue gives less time to them. This may result in judges speeding the process by giving a case less consideration and thus increasing the chance of a mistake. This may result in postponing the case for another day because too little time remains today, so delaying it further. OTOH simple cases are likely the majority of cases. Putting them first lets the majority of, well, users of the judiciary system get served faster.
        tbrownaw 2y ago
        6.3.2 "shortest job first": https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6_CPU_Scheduling.html https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6... > SJF can be proven to be the fastest scheduling algorithm
        JadeNB 2y ago
        > 6.3.2 "shortest job first": https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6_CPU_Scheduling.html https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6... > > SJF can be proven to be the fastest scheduling algorithm That's not fully analogous, since the OS isn't going to miscompute the last operation because it's in a rush to get done and get home.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  Maybe? I don’t think the severity of a case is unknown to the judge, though, even with random ordering.
  - bumby 2y ago
    If they are ordered by severity, with the most severe coming just before lunch, the implication is the harsher sentencing is due to the ordering rather than the hunger pangs of the judge. Ie the hunger thesis is a spurious correlation.
    - cortesoft 2y ago
      I think the person I responded to was talking about actual bias from the judges knowing the order, not about this study. Yes, this study would absolutely be suspect if the order is not random. I was saying I am not sure if the order being based on severity would bias the judges, since my assumption would be that judges are aware of severity directly and don’t need to rely on ordering to deduce it.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> Should the cases be randomized instead? Like any other set of tasks, the order is a practical matter. Severe cases are more random, sometimes sucking up more time than expected. Put them early in the order and any delay will impact everyone. So judges try to get the easy/predictable stuff done first, minimizing the number of people impacted by the inevitable delays. (Doctors do the same if they can, trying tk see easy patients first.) Also, as with any other process, you want to start with a few easy wins in order to solve inevitable problems. If there is something wrong with the court tech (recorders, security etc) you can work it out during the easy cases. Save the murders for after everything is sorted. Thirdly, prisoners are different than normal people. They do not control thier own scheduals. Put thier case early in the docket and they might miss breakfast at the jail. Prisoners are also moved as groups. Put them randomly on the docket and they all have to wait all day. Put them as a group towards the end and the group wont wait as long. So cases involving prisoners, on average the more severe cases, are placed later on the docket.
throwaway2037 2y ago
This paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360865536_Beware_the_Lure_of_Narratives_Hungry_Judges_Should_Not_Motivate_the_Use_of_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Law https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360865536_Beware_th...

by bumby 2y ago

ffhhj 2y ago

> the fact that the cases were ordered. Less severe cases were seen first, which meant the more severe cases (ie those with more severe penalties) were shown later. Isn't that order creating a bias for the judge? Should the cases be randomized instead?

bumby 2y ago
Yes, in the words of the linked paper it injects exogenous decision making. In other words, the decision is based on more than just the judge so we can’t conclude the discrepancy is due to the judge’s personal bias.
- cptaj 2y ago
  Yeah thats the original point but I think he means aside from that, the order itself also drops a suggestion to the judge as to the nature of the case before hearing it. The order itself might be injecting a subconscious bias to the judge.
  - bumby 2y ago
    That’s good point. The authors of the original papers the “hungry judge” idea also did work on what they call “priming” which would include what you suggest. I don’t know if that has been replicated though.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      This is not an example of the priming effect, which describes how one stimulus affects the reaction to a different stimulus, but is simply an example of suggestion for a common stimulus. The priming effect itself has come under fire in recent years for failure to replicate. Examples of priming include what was studied in the Priming Intelligence study, which primed groups of participants with the idea of either professors or the idea of hooligans, then tested how they performed on an intelligence test. It purported to discover that those primed with the idea of professors performed better. This is an example of a widely discussed priming study that has failed replication.
  - kbenson 2y ago
    I think maybe the judges can tell how important cases are based on the charges. I don't think the implication is that someone is somehow reviewing the case prior to it being heard and using some judgement based on some (likely unknown as it has not yet been presented) evidence to order them, but that charges that carry less penalty or that are are already classified as lesser (i.e. misdemeanor compared to felony) are sorted prior to ones that are not. I don't think the people sorting the cases (which could be the judges themselves) have any additional information that the judge doesn't readily have available, so I'm not sure there's much room for bias of a substantial nature.
  - 2y ago
mvkel 2y ago
I wonder if this butts up against the fourth and fifteenth amendments, which touch on due process and justice not being delayed unnecessarily. Randomness introduces inefficiency which implies delay
- kelipso 2y ago
  > Randomness introduces inefficiency That's highly dependent on the situation. Ordering can introduce delays or inefficiencies in many situations.
  - he0001 2y ago
    Can you give some examples?
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Putting harder cases to the end of the queue gives less time to them. This may result in judges speeding the process by giving a case less consideration and thus increasing the chance of a mistake. This may result in postponing the case for another day because too little time remains today, so delaying it further. OTOH simple cases are likely the majority of cases. Putting them first lets the majority of, well, users of the judiciary system get served faster.
      - tbrownaw 2y ago
        6.3.2 "shortest job first": https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6_CPU_Scheduling.html https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6... > SJF can be proven to be the fastest scheduling algorithm
        JadeNB 2y ago
        > 6.3.2 "shortest job first": https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6_CPU_Scheduling.html https://www.cs.uic.edu/~jbell/CourseNotes/OperatingSystems/6... > > SJF can be proven to be the fastest scheduling algorithm That's not fully analogous, since the OS isn't going to miscompute the last operation because it's in a rush to get done and get home.
cortesoft 2y ago
Maybe? I don’t think the severity of a case is unknown to the judge, though, even with random ordering.
- bumby 2y ago
  If they are ordered by severity, with the most severe coming just before lunch, the implication is the harsher sentencing is due to the ordering rather than the hunger pangs of the judge. Ie the hunger thesis is a spurious correlation.
  - cortesoft 2y ago
    I think the person I responded to was talking about actual bias from the judges knowing the order, not about this study. Yes, this study would absolutely be suspect if the order is not random. I was saying I am not sure if the order being based on severity would bias the judges, since my assumption would be that judges are aware of severity directly and don’t need to rely on ordering to deduce it.
sandworm101 2y ago
>> Should the cases be randomized instead? Like any other set of tasks, the order is a practical matter. Severe cases are more random, sometimes sucking up more time than expected. Put them early in the order and any delay will impact everyone. So judges try to get the easy/predictable stuff done first, minimizing the number of people impacted by the inevitable delays. (Doctors do the same if they can, trying tk see easy patients first.) Also, as with any other process, you want to start with a few easy wins in order to solve inevitable problems. If there is something wrong with the court tech (recorders, security etc) you can work it out during the easy cases. Save the murders for after everything is sorted. Thirdly, prisoners are different than normal people. They do not control thier own scheduals. Put thier case early in the docket and they might miss breakfast at the jail. Prisoners are also moved as groups. Put them randomly on the docket and they all have to wait all day. Put them as a group towards the end and the group wont wait as long. So cases involving prisoners, on average the more severe cases, are placed later on the docket.

throwaway2037 2y ago

This paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360865536_Beware_the_Lure_of_Narratives_Hungry_Judges_Should_Not_Motivate_the_Use_of_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Law https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360865536_Beware_th...