Comment by bumby
2 years ago
I believe the original studies were shown to be faulty because they didn’t account for the fact that the cases were ordered. Less severe cases were seen first, which meant the more severe cases (ie those with more severe penalties) were shown later.
“Danziger etal. rely crucially on the assumption that the order of the cases is random and, thus, exogenous to the decision-making process. This assumption has been forcefully challenged. For a short and very critical reply in PNAS, Keren Weinshall-Margel and John Shapard analyzed the data of the original study—as well as other self-collected data—and conducted additional interviews with the court personnel involved.Footnote 51 They point out that the order of the cases is not random: The panel tries to deal with all cases from one prison before a break, before then moving to the cases of the next prison after a break. Most importantly, though, requests from prisoners who are not represented by a lawyer are typically dealt with at the end of each session. So, prisoners without legal representation are less likely to receive a favorable decision compared to those with legal representation.Footnote 52 Additionally, lawyers often represent several inmates and decide on the order in which the cases are presented—it might well be possible that they start with the strongest cases”
[1] Chatziathanasiou, K., 2022. Beware the lure of narratives:“hungry judges” should not motivate the use of “artificial intelligence” in law. German Law Journal, 23(4), pp.452-464.
> the fact that the cases were ordered. Less severe cases were seen first, which meant the more severe cases (ie those with more severe penalties) were shown later.
Isn't that order creating a bias for the judge? Should the cases be randomized instead?
Yes, in the words of the linked paper it injects exogenous decision making. In other words, the decision is based on more than just the judge so we can’t conclude the discrepancy is due to the judge’s personal bias.
Yeah thats the original point but I think he means aside from that, the order itself also drops a suggestion to the judge as to the nature of the case before hearing it.
The order itself might be injecting a subconscious bias to the judge.
13 replies →
>> Should the cases be randomized instead?
Like any other set of tasks, the order is a practical matter. Severe cases are more random, sometimes sucking up more time than expected. Put them early in the order and any delay will impact everyone. So judges try to get the easy/predictable stuff done first, minimizing the number of people impacted by the inevitable delays. (Doctors do the same if they can, trying tk see easy patients first.)
Also, as with any other process, you want to start with a few easy wins in order to solve inevitable problems. If there is something wrong with the court tech (recorders, security etc) you can work it out during the easy cases. Save the murders for after everything is sorted.
Thirdly, prisoners are different than normal people. They do not control thier own scheduals. Put thier case early in the docket and they might miss breakfast at the jail. Prisoners are also moved as groups. Put them randomly on the docket and they all have to wait all day. Put them as a group towards the end and the group wont wait as long. So cases involving prisoners, on average the more severe cases, are placed later on the docket.
Maybe? I don’t think the severity of a case is unknown to the judge, though, even with random ordering.
If they are ordered by severity, with the most severe coming just before lunch, the implication is the harsher sentencing is due to the ordering rather than the hunger pangs of the judge. Ie the hunger thesis is a spurious correlation.
1 reply →
I wonder if this butts up against the fourth and fifteenth amendments, which touch on due process and justice not being delayed unnecessarily.
Randomness introduces inefficiency which implies delay
>Randomness introduces inefficiency which implies delay
That assumes that the previous arrangement, in the form of sequential escalation, was a pre-existing state of nature that came at no cost of effort. And that randomness has to be introduced after the fact, at a new and extra cost.
But I think if cases were ordered without any specifically intended sequence of any kind, that starting point would be closer to randomness than the currently existing escalation. So randomness would cost less, not more.
>Randomness introduces inefficiency
What does that even mean in this context? The amount of cases to be processed doesn't change regardless of the order, and the amount of time and attention directed toward each shouldn't either, otherwise you have a much bigger issue.
4 replies →
> Randomness introduces inefficiency
That's highly dependent on the situation. Ordering can introduce delays or inefficiencies in many situations.
4 replies →
To be clear, are you talking about US Constitution amendments? If yes, I am confused. (Ignore for a moment that we are talking about Israeli jurisprudence.)
US 4th: It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
US 15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Why is either of these relevant in US jurisprudence?
2 replies →
These cases were in Israel. So if you mean the fourth and fifteenth amendments to the US Constitution, they are very unlikely to apply (I’m leaving some room because I don’t know anything about Israeli government)
Doesn't this ordering also go against additional delay, since it expedites misdemeanors at the expense of felonies? Cases should just be tried in the order they were submitted.
8 replies →
This paper? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360865536_Beware_th...