h a l f b a k e r yAlas, poor spelling!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Volunteers selected by an independent commission to sit in on
court cases and fact check each participant's statements for the
presiding judge or commissioner.
[link]
|
| |
You already have this, in the person of the apposing
councils & their teams, it's not like either one is going to let
any blatant lies that damage their case slip by is it, pretty
much defunct as an idea as a result. |
|
| |
[-] unless you can give
some plausible reason why this adds value to the system. |
|
| |
Opposing council is often an overworked, uncaring public defender who doesn't bother to show up half the time, let alone do a good job. |
|
| |
& this would be different how? & why? |
|
| |
Public funded the same
as they so I see no plausible reason this would help. |
|
| |
Probably
make it worse actually because the funds they get now
would
likely be
split, you know that's how it would go eventually, yes I
know he said volunteers, they'll still need funding though
unless you expect them to use their own money on
resources to do their fact checking with. |
|
| |
It would largely negate or at least reduce the need for
plaintiffs or defendants to hire attorneys. In Washington
State they've already taken some steps to make things
easier for pro se representation, such as changing court
forms to "Plain Language" versions that are much easier to
understand and fill out. Having someone who's neutral and
has nothing to do in the courtroom BUT research factual
claims being made AS they are being made would go a
long way toward holding attorneys accountable for trying
to
take advantage of an ignorant defendant with lies they
know the defendant isn't educated enough to call them out
on. |
|
| |
OK, persuasive enough for me to cancel my [-], not persuasive
enough to get a [+] though. |
|
| |
How do they check these facts? |
|
| |
//How do they check these facts?// Let's say you're
on trial for murder. The prosecution stand up and say
you murdered someone. You then say you didn't. At
this point, if in fact you did murder this person,
the fact-checker will stand up and say "Actually,
[calum] did commit this murder", and then sit down.
Simple. Oh, wait, that didn't answer your question. |
|
| |
//How do they check these facts?// |
|
| |
The only plausible way I can think of to do it in real time (&
it will be in real time) is internet searches (& as the
internet can't really be trusted all the time, especially if
the prosecutor or defence team play dirty & deploy agents
to edit Wikipedia pages & otherwise game the system)
coupled with the standard who wants to be a millionaire
cheat method .. bluetoothed to a buddy in a good sized
library ready to go look things up. |
|
| |
More than one buddy if you want it to work fast. |
|
| |
You'll also most likely want a string of specialist experts in
fields appropriate to the case available so the fact checker
can ask a friend, & it's doubtful they'll
come free. |
|
| |
I cant see it being cheap. |
|
| |
If it's cheap it won't be any good. |
|
| |
You can have cheap or you can have good. |
|
| |
You could issue press buttons to the jury & public gallery for
an ask the
audience option as well. |
|
| |
//bluetoothed to a buddy in a good sized library// -
it might be a challenge building libraries within
bluetooth range (10 metres) of all courtrooms, but
not impossible, given sufficient funds. |
|
| |
//might be a challenge building libraries within bluetooth
range (10 metres) of all courtrooms// |
|
| |
Your Bluetooth connects to your mobile which connects to
your
buddies mobile which connects to their Bluetooth. |
|
| |
Leaving your hands free for internet searches & theirs free
for flipping through books. |
|
| |
I think extant mobile phone mast coverage probably
suffices. |
|
| |
I guess I was thinking more of factual claims of a non-
legal character. Judges are usually sufficiently versed in
relevant case law, but lawyers often make false claims
about timelines and statements made by the other party. |
|
| |
Prosecutor: "When the defendant said 'I did this!' what else
could he have possibly meant' your Honor?" |
|
| |
Fact checker: "Your Honor, he didn't say that, I'm looking at
the transcript right now as the scribe is typing it and he
never said it". |
|
| |
So I guess sort of an observational fact checker? |
|
| |
Ah, OK, differed sort of facts entirely to what I was thinking,
more like instant-action replay for referee decisions in
football. |
|
| |
Right, or if they misquote things like crime statistics which
are easily searchable on the internet. |
|
| |
They could put up the top ten pertinent facts/reasonings, two colours, on a gigantic OLED courtroom leader board.
A trial duration reminder to both lawyers but mainly the jury. |
|
| |
PREAMBLE: In my life, I have been in a court room exactly
once
(during my post-grad training) and a court-house twice. I
have
never set foot in an American court house, though I have
seen
My Cousin Vinny twice and usually refer to young people
as
"yoots" when I see them out and about. This preamble is
intended to serve as a clear disclaimer about this being
an
appeal to my, uh, professional expertise when I say the
following: |
|
| |
I am a lawyer and I don't get this idea. There are two
things I
don't get:
First, what facts are being checked? Is it inconsistencies
within
testimony or evidence? Is it just factual inaccuracies?
Both? Because depending on the answers to this, I have
more to say (sorry).
Second, what function is being carried out here that
would not -
in the proper operation of a courtroom - be carried out by
(a)
the opposing lawyer, (b) the judge or (c) the jury? Each
of these
three have role to play in managing and assessing the
integrity
of the evidence. If they cannot do that, then how is an
equally
human (and potentially more straightforwardly
corruptible)
individual going to be either better at this than (a), (b)
and (c)?
How are they not going to be susceptible to the same
lapses in
attention or difficulty in following what's going on? |
|
| |
I don't mean to swoop out of my mahogany office, robes
flying,
and wig askew to shit on this idea, I just don't understand
how it
would work. It feels like adding another layer with the
same
inherent problems to solve the problems of the lower
layers. |
|
| |
I keep reading this as Courtroom Fat Checkers
which makes me laugh + |
|
| |
We design systems knowing parts may fail. This is a fail-safe. Just like you add a safety margin when you build. |
|
| |
Calum, think of it as sort of an impartial judge's aid who
helps the judge in determining the veracity of both parties'
statements. Sort of a leveller who helps even the playing
field for a plaintiff or defendant who might not have been
able to afford as expensive and oily an attorney as the
other guy. |
|
| |
I don't think this is the court's job (or an independent commission acting for the court). It should be the job of the prosecution or defense to point out inaccurate facts. |
|
| |
I might even go so far as to say that the accuracy of facts is not germane to the cases before the court (unless the lawyers say it is, in which case see previous paragraph). |
|
| |
I think what this idea is suggesting is an inquisitorial system of
justice like they have in France, in contrast to the adversarial
system used in the UK and USA |
|
| |
Hippo, could you elaborate on the French system? I've
never heard of it. |
|
| |
Maybe, The Judges should be stating their thoughts, via a reasoning leader board, in jury language, as the trial unfolds. Lawyers had the the judge dynamic before but this would link the judge and the jury more effectively. |
|
| |
Soften the adversarial and lean towards trying to find the crux of the case. The goal is a better society right? |
|
| |