4 ms·

The watermark is actively distracting from the enormously important work of reading the complaint in detail. This isn't a question of formality for formality's

The watermark is actively distracting from the enormously important work of reading the complaint in detail. This isn't a question of formality for formality's sake, it's a question of ensuring that the processes run smoothly so that justice can be done.

exe34 1y ago
If he studied enough for law school and was able to work in a court for years before becoming a judge, I would assume his ADHD is under control and he is not that easily distracted.
- jacobgkau 1y ago
  Consciously, sure, but with some studies saying judges tend to rule differently on similar cases based on whether it's before or after lunchtime, do you really want to introduce more subliminal variables like decorations into the legal process?
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    The influence of cartoon dragons probably don't come close the influence of judges and lawyers talking to each other about what schools they went to, what country clubs they belong to, etc. The breech of formality isn't being turned into a big deal because it might bias case outcomes; in that regard it's a rounding error washed out by innumerable more substantial sources of bias. It's being made into a big deal because formality is the wall between outcomes of cases and feelings of personal culpability for the people who are involved in that process. All of the formality and decorum make it easier for judges and lawyers to emotionally distance themselves from, very often, ruining peoples' lives.
    - jacobgkau 1y ago
      Too many "rounding errors" adding up seems like a reasonable justification for not allowing even seemingly small sources of additional inconsistency. Slippery slope and all that. Also, just because the other potential sources of bias you brought up exist doesn't mean new ones should be let into the process. I wouldn't be against solutions to remove the ones you mentioned. But I don't think you'd be entirely convinced that just allowing cartoon dragons would decrease bias by making people more empathetic.
      - exe34 1y ago
        Do you know for a fact that those rounding errors add up, or do they cancel out? I feel like all this bikeshedding is just helping to draw the attention off the more significant and well known biases.
        jacobgkau 1y ago
        Do you know for a fact that the rounding errors cancel out perfectly? Probably not. Trying to make this about "more significant and well known biases" when all I'm arguing for is not introducing additional biases is a logical fallacy. And allowing cartoon watermarks in court documents would not help with the "more significant and well known biases" that you're more concerned about, anyway, so I have to wonder why you feel strongly enough that this should be allowed that you'd write off opposition as "bikeshedding."
  - Analemma_ 1y ago
    The "hungry judge" finding did not replicate [0], and the original paper had serious methodological flaws, namely, that prisoners with parole hearings later in the day were more likely to have either overworked "shared counsel" (the Israeli equivalent of public defenders) or no counsel at all [1]. You should consider the hungry judge effect another debunked victim of the replication crisis. [0]: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2022/wp_tse_1393.pdf https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/... [1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108
- fsckboy 1y ago
  and since HN is less serious than a court, when I write a comment to you here, surely you agree that there is no justifiable reason the people that run this site should not allow me to purple-dragon-watermark my comments. what's the matter with you paul/dang, don't have your adhd under control?

exe34 1y ago

If he studied enough for law school and was able to work in a court for years before becoming a judge, I would assume his ADHD is under control and he is not that easily distracted.

jacobgkau 1y ago
Consciously, sure, but with some studies saying judges tend to rule differently on similar cases based on whether it's before or after lunchtime, do you really want to introduce more subliminal variables like decorations into the legal process?
- lupusreal 1y ago
  The influence of cartoon dragons probably don't come close the influence of judges and lawyers talking to each other about what schools they went to, what country clubs they belong to, etc. The breech of formality isn't being turned into a big deal because it might bias case outcomes; in that regard it's a rounding error washed out by innumerable more substantial sources of bias. It's being made into a big deal because formality is the wall between outcomes of cases and feelings of personal culpability for the people who are involved in that process. All of the formality and decorum make it easier for judges and lawyers to emotionally distance themselves from, very often, ruining peoples' lives.
  - jacobgkau 1y ago
    Too many "rounding errors" adding up seems like a reasonable justification for not allowing even seemingly small sources of additional inconsistency. Slippery slope and all that. Also, just because the other potential sources of bias you brought up exist doesn't mean new ones should be let into the process. I wouldn't be against solutions to remove the ones you mentioned. But I don't think you'd be entirely convinced that just allowing cartoon dragons would decrease bias by making people more empathetic.
    - exe34 1y ago
      Do you know for a fact that those rounding errors add up, or do they cancel out? I feel like all this bikeshedding is just helping to draw the attention off the more significant and well known biases.
      - jacobgkau 1y ago
        Do you know for a fact that the rounding errors cancel out perfectly? Probably not. Trying to make this about "more significant and well known biases" when all I'm arguing for is not introducing additional biases is a logical fallacy. And allowing cartoon watermarks in court documents would not help with the "more significant and well known biases" that you're more concerned about, anyway, so I have to wonder why you feel strongly enough that this should be allowed that you'd write off opposition as "bikeshedding."
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  The "hungry judge" finding did not replicate [0], and the original paper had serious methodological flaws, namely, that prisoners with parole hearings later in the day were more likely to have either overworked "shared counsel" (the Israeli equivalent of public defenders) or no counsel at all [1]. You should consider the hungry judge effect another debunked victim of the replication crisis. [0]: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2022/wp_tse_1393.pdf https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/... [1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108
fsckboy 1y ago
and since HN is less serious than a court, when I write a comment to you here, surely you agree that there is no justifiable reason the people that run this site should not allow me to purple-dragon-watermark my comments. what's the matter with you paul/dang, don't have your adhd under control?