Most active commenters
  • wqaatwt(3)

←back to thread

Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

(assemblingamerica.substack.com)
360 points namlem | 17 comments | 14 Jul 25 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.307s | source | bottom
Show context
like_any_other ◴[15 Jul 25 13:50 UTC] No.44571164[source]▶
> Juries, widely trusted to impartially deliver justice, are the most familiar instance.

Trusted by those that have not looked into whether this is actually the case. The first prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was famously against trial by jury, because of how easily lawyers can abuse biases in multiracial societies, based on his first-hand experience [1].

A UK study found his experience is the norm, not the exception - Black and minority ethnic (BME) jurors vote guilty 73% of the time against White defendants, but only 24% of the time against BME defendants [2]. (White jurors vote 39% and 32% for convicting White and BME defendants, respectively. You read that correctly - Whites are also biased against other Whites, but to a much lesser degree)

Edit: To answer what is the alternative to juries: Not all countries use juries, in some the decision is up to the judge, and in some, like France, they use a mixed system of judges and jurors on a panel [3]. The French system would be my personal preference, with the classic jury system coming in second, despite my jury-critical post. Like democracy, it's perhaps the least bad system that we have, but we shouldn't be under any illusions about how impartial and perceptive a group of 12 people selected at random is.

[1] https://postcolonialweb.org/singapore/government/leekuanyew/...

[2] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst... - page 165 (182 by pdf reader numbering), figure 6.4

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

replies(6): >>44571214 #>>44571429 #>>44571450 #>>44571511 #>>44574077 #>>44575902 #
1. mlinhares ◴[15 Jul 25 13:56 UTC] No.44571214[source]▶
And what is the other option? Just led the judge alone decide?
replies(3): >>44571299 #>>44571717 #>>44571907 #
2. kccqzy ◴[15 Jul 25 14:04 UTC] No.44571299[source]▶
Yes I trust judges more than I trust juries.

And it usually isn't a single judge. There is a panel of judges or en banc.

And juries aren't universal either. Lots of other countries don't have juries but they have a fair and equitable justice system. Look up civil law vs common law.

replies(4): >>44571523 #>>44571533 #>>44571620 #>>44573692 #
3. bluGill ◴[15 Jul 25 14:29 UTC] No.44571523[source]▶
I want the judge to keep the lawyers in check so they cannot. Judges are trustable because the jury limits their power. If I am a lawyer I know whothe judges are and it is to my advantage to figure out their bias (including judge shopping if there is more than one in the area), looking for embaressing things or blackmail material, what bribes they will accept (often in form of donation to a family charity) and so one.

which is to say the reason I trust judges is the jury keeps them in check by ensuring there isn't value in the above corruption.

replies(2): >>44571605 #>>44573912 #
4. lukan ◴[15 Jul 25 14:30 UTC] No.44571533[source]▶
What is the reasoning, judges are above racial bias?
replies(1): >>44571833 #
5. mlinhares ◴[15 Jul 25 14:38 UTC] No.44571605{3}[source]▶
Judge shopping is also a thing, if the judge was the only person in power to make the decision we'd be completely screwed.
6. Matticus_Rex ◴[15 Jul 25 14:39 UTC] No.44571620[source]▶
I trust an individual judge's opinion on almost any topic to be more intelligent than that of an individual jury member.

But there's huge selection bias in who becomes a judge, and so we end up with a pool of people who are mostly former prosecutors, which is another pool with a huge selection bias.

All of the judges I know personally (though not all I've been around) are well-meaning, fair-minded people, but with maybe one exception they're all true believers in the fairness of the system, and all tend to give tremendous unearned deference to prosecutors. We should absolutely not make them the finders of fact in criminal cases.

replies(1): >>44574863 #
7. psunavy03 ◴[15 Jul 25 14:49 UTC] No.44571717[source]▶
This is known as a "bench trial" and is a legal concept.
replies(1): >>44573050 #
8. kccqzy ◴[15 Jul 25 14:58 UTC] No.44571833{3}[source]▶
They are more likely than juries to be above racial bias. Not 100% but I trust them more due to the training and education needed to become a judge.
replies(1): >>44573564 #
9. tzs ◴[15 Jul 25 15:05 UTC] No.44571907[source]▶
One possibility would be to use juries to just decide facts, then a panel of judges applies the law to those facts.

If there are many factual disputes in a case maybe use multiple juries with each jury only deciding on a subset of the facts, chosen so that no jury sees the entire case. They are less likely to be biased if they don't see the entire case.

10. nottorp ◴[15 Jul 25 16:38 UTC] No.44573050[source]▶
Bench trial and civil law are actually the most used legal systems worldwide, not jury trial and common law.
replies(1): >>44574958 #
11. pests ◴[15 Jul 25 17:19 UTC] No.44573564{4}[source]▶
Why not a jury of 12 judges for the best of both worlds?
replies(1): >>44574882 #
12. vidarh ◴[15 Jul 25 17:30 UTC] No.44573692[source]▶
Norway has a tradition of using panels of judges that uses a mix of professional judges and lay judges drawn from the jury pool. I don't recall the specifics on when this systems used vs. a regular jury. They deliberate with the professional judge, has the majority, but can be overridden if their reasoning is blatantly contrary to the law.
13. wslh ◴[15 Jul 25 17:50 UTC] No.44573912{3}[source]▶
Not only that but today you have all kind of analytics for courts, and judges that you can use in your favour.
14. wqaatwt ◴[15 Jul 25 19:23 UTC] No.44574863{3}[source]▶
Lay judges are also an option and might offer a reasonable balance.
replies(1): >>44581674 #
15. wqaatwt ◴[15 Jul 25 19:24 UTC] No.44574882{5}[source]▶
It would be very expensive but yes seems like a good option. Of course a problem in some places and systems is that judges are often political appointees which has its own implications
16. wqaatwt ◴[15 Jul 25 19:32 UTC] No.44574958{3}[source]▶
Jury trials are not unique to common law systems, though. Many civil law systems either have lay judges or allow jury trials under certain circumstances.

Of course you are not entitled to a jury trial in e.g. France unless you are accused of something very serious.

17. Matticus_Rex ◴[16 Jul 25 12:44 UTC] No.44581674{4}[source]▶
We'd need a full overhaul of the legal system from the ground up to get to a place where we could implement the better versions of lay judge participation, and if we got a full overhaul of the legal system that's not what we'd land on. And lay judges aren't really a balance between juries and judges in most implementations.