I'm currently researching the rationality of criminal trials, though my focus is on evidence law. The current adversarial system does have some advantages:

• An adversary system creates incentives to bring information before the court. Parties want to win. In particular, the defendant has a direct interest in avoiding punishment. Defendants can help themselves by pointing out flaws in the prosecution case. In general, an adversary system rewards parties who put arguments and evidence before the court.

• However, this can include bad arguments and emotive but irrelevant evidence. This makes procedural decisions on what will or won't be considered at trial very important. Flawed procedures might allow a rhetorical free-for-all or exclude informative advocacy.

• The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Discharging this burden means finding witnesses, taking photos of crime scenes, engaging forensic scientists, and so on. The prosecution normally has better investigative tools to do this work. Allocating the burden of proof in this way therefore helps to bring relevant evidence before the court.

Here are some things we could change:

• Currently, evidence can be excluded for technical reasons. For example, evidence gathered in breach of a defendant's rights is normally inadmissible at trial. So, there may be strong evidence of guilt, but the defendant may nonetheless be acquitted.

This is probably about recognizing (legal) rights, and eliminating reasons for prosecutors to breach rights. Much of the Anglo-American criminal law is about being fair to defendants - only convicting when the proper standard of proof is met by the proper means.

An alternative approach would be to allow such evidence at trial, and severely punish investigators who breach rights. This would avoid some technical acquittals where the evidence supports conviction. However, a reluctance to punish high-status investigators means this approach could just result in more breaches of rights.

• Forensic investigations could be conducted by neutral groups. There could be certified investigators. Parties could pass questions and suggested lines of inquiry to these investigators. These investigators could be responsible for leading evidence - presenting a narrative of the relevant events via witnesses and physical evidence. Parties directly involved might then be able to cross-examine the investigators and their witnesses, to test the suggested narrative for flaws.

This would gain some impartiality in forensic investigation. Currently, forensic investigations are normally linked with the prosecution case, and are informed by the prosecution's theory of what took place. With a suspect in mind, confirmation bias can skew the conduct of such investigations. Alternative explanations may be too readily rejected.

Imposing a third party between collection of evidence and arguments at trial could help to mitigate this risk. It could even out the forensic resources available to parties. However, it might decrease the speed and efficiency of investigations.

• What is your main domain of expertise? (Your profession, your area of study, or even a hobby!)

I have just finished degrees in law and philosophy, which I guess counts for some amount of expertise. I'm now studying both at graduate level. For the past three years or so, I've also been tutoring "traditional rationality" courses in philosophy. Before that, I was a high-school math tutor for about 8 years. Overall, I'd rate my teaching skills as somewhat higher-level than the areas I've studied formally.

I'm a bit of a generalist - I've also studied chinese, human biology, and mathematics.

• What issues in your domain call most critically for sharp thinking?

Legal and philosophical reasoning often deal with vaguely defined folk-concepts such as causation. Fitting these into good reasoning often means finding precise criteria to look for in the observable world.

Lawyers are also prone to emphasise persuasion, without necessarily being rational about it. Being trained to see both sides of an issue means we risk a failure to conclude based on evidence. It's easier to say "each side has arguments".

• What do you know that could be of interest to the LessWrong community?

I know that a few simple ideas in argumentation theory can be quite powerful in augmenting people's rationality. The course I've taught most often focuses on evaluating arguments, by performing two tasks: firstly assessing the "logical strength" of inferences, and secondly assessing the "plausibility of premises".

I also know that many students struggle to understand this simple rationalist tool. I suspect most who do understand it may not apply it outside the domain of passing-philosophy-exams.

• What might you learn from experts in other domains that could be useful in yours?

I'd like to know more about mathematical descriptions of reasoning. Statistical and probabilistic reasoning can be important in assessing legal liability, and I'm far from expert at this. Also, Bayesians seem to identify problems with "statistical significance" based on arbitrary p-value thresholds. Understanding this seems important to developing a rational philosophy of science, both academically and for myself.

Auckland, New Zealand

What am I doing? Trying to write a few thousand words on legal reasoning about people's dispositions.

Why? To finish my dissertation, and graduate with an Honours degree in law.

Why am I doing that? To increase my status and career opportunities, but also due to inertia. I've almost finished this degree, and a few more weeks of work for this result seem worthwhile. Also, doing otherwise would make me look weird and potentially cut off valuable opportunities.

Why does that matter? Much intellectually interesting and well paid work seems to require signalling a certain level of competence, as well as a willingness to follow social norms.

And why does that matter? I want to have access to interesting work, as well as sufficient skills, money, and influence to usefully assist my favoured causes. This means the SIAI!

At the same time, I'm not sure how well-reasoned my career decisionmaking is. JRMayne's diagnosis may be on point:

One particular example is high-powered law students joining big firms for just a little while until they end up doing [thing they like/thing they think is good for society].

I could try and become a corporate lawyer within the next few years, which would help me to gain wealth, and thereby contribute financially to SIAI. The downside would be long working hours, and a high-pressure, potentially conservative work environment. I worry that working in such an evironment, my attitudes would change dramatically.

Why does that matter? I like my attitudes the way they are! I also enjoy working with people who share an interest in being rational. This is a terminal value, or close to it.

The main use of these questions might be to imply a further one:

Could you be doing something more worthwhile?

It seems likely. Perhaps I should find out whether my skills are directly useful for the SIAI. Knowledge either way would be useful.

$150 US to the General Fund. Hope that makes my good deed for the day count!

• Name: James Edwards
• Handle: james_edwards
• Location: Auckland, New Zealand
• Education: BA (Philosophy, plus some Statistics and Chinese); will finish my law degree within a few months.
• Occupation: Tutor for a stage one (freshman) Critical Thinking course - teaching old-school rationalism, focused on diagnosing and preventing fallacious arguments.

Came upon Eliezer's simple truth years ago, then happened upon a link to OB during a phase of reading econblogs. As a teenager I was appalled that many people believed the unsupported claims of homeopathy and other less-than-evidence based medical treatments.

I worry that my limited mathematical education is a barrier to becoming a better rationalist, and intend to learn more. A bigger barrier still is akrasia - I struggle to follow through on my well-intentioned plans.

Rationalist lawyers seem to be rare. There may be good reasons for this which I have failed to consider. For the time being, I'm planning to write my dissertation on whether the current law makes cryogenics viable for New Zealanders.