h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
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.
|
A courtroom with a one way mirror where the judge / jury
can not see the defendant and the plaintiff. The
defendants can see the judge / jury though. After all its
only fair that you can look into the eyes of the judge who
sentenced you to some horrible punishment. (two dots
would mark the
place where defendants eyes normally
would be so that eye contact is possible and we don't get
the following awkward situations: Judge looks intensely at
a trash can and says "People like you are
trash. You are hereby sentenced to 3 years of hard labour")
Bonus points for deaf justice where everything said is
translated STT and then back out TTS so that everyone
involved including the lawyers sounds like a robot.
Statues would have to be outfitted with earplugs too, so
that symbolism remains in sync.
Bonus++ points if court rules make it harder to guess
socioeconomic status, gender, age and religion of parties
involved
[link]
|
| |
Trouble is, you haven't eliminated the biases and partyality of data gathering, selection, interpretation, presentation, reception and cognition, any or all of which can bias the decision. The only truly unbiased way to do this is random selection. So, choose a % of the population to be imprisoned, and randomly select a certain percentage of individuals to be lifted, and a certain percentage of them to be sentenced, and a distribution of them to give sentence duration. Could use dice or a roulette wheel kind of gadget. |
|
| |
A person's appearance can be important in making
a legal judgement. For example, a large
overweight person is unlikely to have been the
burglar who escaped via a tiny window smaller
than their head. |
|
| |
though I'm not even remotely a fan of ubiquitous
surveillance, but in terms of guilt or innocence of "physical"
crimes, the best investment is fairly obviously in
surveillance, be it in cctv cameras, drones, or bodycams on
cops |
|
| |
being able to FACE your accuser is judged a fundamental
right in modern justice systems. You definitely don't want
to eliminate that. |
|
| |
the biases you are presuming here that are appearance
based are already manipulated by both prosecutors and
defense attorneys in both venue shopping (in civil cases)
and jury selection and in the appeals process, of course. |
|
| |
despite some self-regulation in recent years in the media,
the jury pool already has a perception of what kind of
stereotype performs what crime (e.g. even in the type of
crime, like white collar crime). So by not presenting say
the gang member in a clean shaven, suit-dressed look, you
might be hurting their chances. |
|
| |
this idea in short is not a good idea, especially if your goal
is to somehow improve the odds for the defendant. |
|
| |
which is not to say there are no biases, or that those biases
are not exploited. |
|
| |
//partyality of data gathering// |
|
| |
I can still see the prosecuter implying something anyway, like "as a minority, he...", while the defense will say something like "his hands are too big for the gloves". |
|
| |