3 ms·

I’m curious, had any legislatures tried blinded trials, where judges and/or juries don’t see the litigants, don’t know their names or location details, and othe

I’m curious, had any legislatures tried blinded trials, where judges and/or juries don’t see the litigants, don’t know their names or location details, and otherwise only have access to the information on a need-to-know basis? Sort of like how removing names, ages and photos from resumes removes demographic biases and makes one focus on the actual skillset. (I’m not sure if this is a good idea, merely wondering if it was tried.)

drdec 1y ago
Wouldn't that be kind of tough since one of juries main function is evaluation of witnesses. Without seeing the witnesses face or hearing their voice, how could one do that?
- wat10000 1y ago
  The whole point is that they would be evaluating the witnesses' testimony, not their mannerisms and appearance (read: how culturally and racially similar they are to the jury, or to the "high class" ideal of their society).
- drdaeman 1y ago
  The idea is to filter out bias-introducing information with low relevance (like gender, appearance, or accent) and focus on the actual events that took place. Otherwise the court starts to include elements of theatrics and objective truth starts to give way to how one presents their case, such as what sort of appearance litigants make. E.g., whenever they're speaking confidently or, say, stuttering nervously. While this can be relevant information (e.g. if someone refuses to look in the eyes it could be a sign one's lying), there are multitude of ways it can be deceiving (e.g. if someone refuses to look in the eyes it could be that they find eye contact generally uncomfortable, for example folks with anxiety disorders do that). Presenting both litigants through a Vtuber-like interface that re-synthesizes voices, adjusts some patterns of speech (like replacing names with placeholders, or making language gender-neutral), reduces non-verbal signalling, and provides neutral appearances to both parties, feels like something that can make litigants, judge and juries all focus on the abstract ideas of what took place, potentially allowing for a more clear and neutral judgement. But - of course - it's also perfectly possible that it would fail in some way I fail to foresee.
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
There is a belief that one can accurately determine guilt by looking at someone's face, seeing their body language, and hearing them speak. I myself sometimes think this is true. But the truth of the matter is that in the United States at least, this is all irrelevant. No one gets a trial anymore, not in practice. Everything is plea bargain. Between 95 and 99 out of 100 cases is resolved in that manner, and the common opinion is that there is no capacity to give anyone trials at all.

drdec 1y ago

Wouldn't that be kind of tough since one of juries main function is evaluation of witnesses. Without seeing the witnesses face or hearing their voice, how could one do that?

wat10000 1y ago
The whole point is that they would be evaluating the witnesses' testimony, not their mannerisms and appearance (read: how culturally and racially similar they are to the jury, or to the "high class" ideal of their society).
drdaeman 1y ago
The idea is to filter out bias-introducing information with low relevance (like gender, appearance, or accent) and focus on the actual events that took place. Otherwise the court starts to include elements of theatrics and objective truth starts to give way to how one presents their case, such as what sort of appearance litigants make. E.g., whenever they're speaking confidently or, say, stuttering nervously. While this can be relevant information (e.g. if someone refuses to look in the eyes it could be a sign one's lying), there are multitude of ways it can be deceiving (e.g. if someone refuses to look in the eyes it could be that they find eye contact generally uncomfortable, for example folks with anxiety disorders do that). Presenting both litigants through a Vtuber-like interface that re-synthesizes voices, adjusts some patterns of speech (like replacing names with placeholders, or making language gender-neutral), reduces non-verbal signalling, and provides neutral appearances to both parties, feels like something that can make litigants, judge and juries all focus on the abstract ideas of what took place, potentially allowing for a more clear and neutral judgement. But - of course - it's also perfectly possible that it would fail in some way I fail to foresee.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

There is a belief that one can accurately determine guilt by looking at someone's face, seeing their body language, and hearing them speak. I myself sometimes think this is true. But the truth of the matter is that in the United States at least, this is all irrelevant. No one gets a trial anymore, not in practice. Everything is plea bargain. Between 95 and 99 out of 100 cases is resolved in that manner, and the common opinion is that there is no capacity to give anyone trials at all.