= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Rationality & Criminal Law: Some Questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (147)
Haha. Neutral groups. In a role that requires status, wields power and people have an enormous motivation to influence them. That is going to work.
Quite.
How well do we think judges do in this respect?
How well do we think the French system does in this respect?
At least where they are allocating tasks among interested parties, Anglo-American trials seem relatively savvy about human nature.
Too much fictional evidence to really judge... but I say extremely well, all things considered. Overt bribes seem to be at least discouraged. That's a good start.
Totally. "Advocate" rhetoric really gets on my nerves but there is no way I would trade it for fake neutrality. Where there is some low hanging fruit is in raising the bar on what rhetoric the advocates can get away with. That is, add logical fallacies and the most popular bullshit rhetorical gambits used in trials to the list of things that can be formally objected to. Many of these are objective enough to safely put in the hands of a judge.