Crazy Idea?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mac-collector, May 19, 2012.

  1. mac-collector macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #1
    Wouldn't it be more 'accurate' (equal) if the judge, jury or whoever is taking the final decision in a legal case would never meet nor get any 'personal' information about the persons involved?
    Instead they would get a written statement saying something on lines of: Person 1 did this... Person 2 did this...

    Of course they would need to get enough information to make the right decision, but not enough to form racial/gender/age or any other bias, which is often the case is todays judicial systems.

    What do you think? Impractical or just downright impossible?
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Witness testimonies depend on delivery, without a live witness cases would be won by the best writers.
     
  3. hollerz macrumors 6502a

    hollerz

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    #3
    And cross examination is when the truth usually comes out.

    There's certainly some that slip through the cracks, but I think on the whole to get to where you're a judge you need to have proven yourself unbiased.
     
  4. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #4
    Can anyone be truly unbiased? And juries don't have to be unbiased, right? Although they should.



    And how can I even post here? I am just a regular.
     
  5. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #5
    Paper bags and gloves for all.

    And a voice modification device, so they all sound like HAL 2000.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #6
    That might actually be a pretty good idea..... And it's very cheap - except for the voice modification, but the benefits outweigh the costs. Why isn't anyone doing this?
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Siri is essentially voice to text.

    Next step, "Siri, read that text." ;)
     
  8. mikeyredk macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    #8
    How would you be able to read the physical tells of the witness? Have you seen 12 Angry men? For me the delivery of the testimony is more important then the actual testimony (disclaimer I have never been in a Jury but I am registered)
     
  9. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #9
    I have, and Henry Fonda's character would make a wizard poker player.

    Year ago I attended a project manager's seminar at I.B.M., and one of the segments was watching that movie, and then dissecting his technique throughout.

    A revelation. :cool:
     
  10. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #10
    I'm pretty sure that in a lot of parts of the country, judges are just lawyers who've been elected.
     
  11. Grey Beard macrumors 65816

    Grey Beard

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Location:
    The Antipodes.
    #11
    The requirement is to have passed the 100 post mark. You scrape by, so can post.

    KGB:cool:
     
  12. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #12
    I thought you were a short, for sure.

    Do you suspect what I do? <with apologies to Peter Frampton>
     
  13. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #13
    I like your way of thinking given it would eliminate grounds for sexism, racism, agism, etc. ...but the problem is that human emotion in itself can tell a lot of the story and may be useful in making a determination. So you would need some sort of standardization of sentencing, which has problems in itself given the same type of crime can result in very different outcome severity on the victims.
     
  14. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #14
    No, that wouldn't work because the fact finder needs to be able to make a determination of credibility, which often times depends as much on body language as it does facts and narrative.

    A paper trial would make it easier to remove bias, but it strips out too much bias. Bias developed through a trial based on testimony is a legitimate thing; it's how the 2-4% of cases that get to a jury are decided.
     
  15. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #15
    I agree that this is not very practical without a lot of changes in they way the system it, but let me ask you this:
    Which is worse, to convict an innocent person because of bias, or acquit the actual offender because of lack of 'emotion'.

    In reality we need to take into account which will happen more often and with varying severity, but let's ignore that for this 'thought experiment'.
     
  16. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #16
    Obviously I think an innocent person being convicted is worse, but that doesn't flow directly from removing bias. You may just as easily convict an innocent person because you can't empathize (a type of positive bias) and acquit an actual offender because affidavits amplified their ability to be dishonest.

    And in reality almost no one goes to trial for criminal cases, and your original hypo didn't specify that it was only for criminal cases.
     
  17. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #17
    I know, it doesn't. It was just one example.
     
  18. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    Well since we are talking about witnesses in general, how do you plan on squaring the problems I mentioned previously with your "crazy idea?"

    Beyond that, how do you plan on magically knowing who said what and getting it written down for a judge/jury to see? And what about the accused having the right to confront witnesses?
     
  19. hafr macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    #19
    Get rid of the absolute insane system of having a jury deciding whether or not someone is guilty instead. Seriously. It's appalling to see people from the street having that kind of power in their hands. The decision whether or not someone has in fact broken the law should be made by people who are qualified to read and interpret the actual laws, not by people who tend to listen most to whoever manages to convince them the best.
     
  20. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #20
    I agree, but is there any chance that we will see the end of the jury system this century?
     
  21. jeremy h macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Gosh yes, the common person in the street is far too thick to understand! Also - while we're at it it would probably best that they're not involved in selecting the people (via elections) who make those laws either. Far better it's done by some small politically appointed group, or perhaps even just a single person. It would all be so much faster and more efficient. (They might even be able to make the trains run on time too...)
     
  22. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #22
    This is the single biggest problem with democracy, but I don't think there is a better system right now. The people who promise everything good and gold have a better chance of getting elected than those who are realistic.
    Just look at France recently.
     
  23. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #23
  24. jeremy h macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Sorry, I was being sarcastic and alluding to dictatorship with the trains running on time bit.

    My partner has served a couple of juries (it's funny how they keep missing me out - wonder why? ;)) and she has been hugely impressed by the experience both times.

    It one of the few things I would never wish to give up.
     
  25. mac-collector thread starter macrumors regular

    mac-collector

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #25
    I've never been in a jury nor know anyone who has. But elections and juries aren't a very good analogy. Electing someone is like being on the jury for your own trial, as it directly affects you.
     

Share This Page