←back to thread

Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

(assemblingamerica.substack.com)
360 points namlem | 5 comments | 14 Jul 25 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.86s | source
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 #
digitalPhonix ◴[15 Jul 25 14:20 UTC] No.44571429[source]▶
That statistic could also be the result of excessive prosecution against black/minorities and not necessarily just jury bias. (Which would also explain the white bias against whites)
replies(3): >>44571629 #>>44571673 #>>44572109 #
like_any_other ◴[15 Jul 25 14:45 UTC] No.44571673[source]▶
A universal counterargument that works on any data. But unlikely to be true, given that the UK sentenced a BME perpetrator to a short 2 years for one-punch-killing an 82-year-old veteran [1], while "threatening gestures" at police and chanting "who the f- is Allah" earn the White perpetrator 18 months in prison [2], and merely being present at a protest, while not engaging in any violence, earns 32 months in prison [3].

We also have to ask - if the biases in that study were flipped, if White jurors were far more likely to convict BME defendants, and pardon White defendants, and BME jurors were the more even-handed ones, would this not be trumpeted as conclusive evidence of racism?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66959198

[2] https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/24515551.london-disord...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/08/pens...

replies(8): >>44571851 #>>44572201 #>>44573264 #>>44574005 #>>44574076 #>>44574180 #>>44577741 #>>44586012 #
1. drdaeman ◴[15 Jul 25 15:01 UTC] No.44571851[source]▶
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.)

replies(2): >>44573210 #>>44582448 #
2. drdec ◴[15 Jul 25 16:50 UTC] No.44573210[source]▶
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?
replies(2): >>44573675 #>>44576793 #
3. wat10000 ◴[15 Jul 25 17:29 UTC] No.44573675[source]▶
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).
4. drdaeman ◴[15 Jul 25 22:58 UTC] No.44576793[source]▶
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.

5. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[16 Jul 25 13:57 UTC] No.44582448[source]▶
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.