Comment by ffhhj
2 years ago
> 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.
I think maybe the judges can tell how important cases are based on the charges. I don't think the implication is that someone is somehow reviewing the case prior to it being heard and using some judgement based on some (likely unknown as it has not yet been presented) evidence to order them, but that charges that carry less penalty or that are are already classified as lesser (i.e. misdemeanor compared to felony) are sorted prior to ones that are not.
I don't think the people sorting the cases (which could be the judges themselves) have any additional information that the judge doesn't readily have available, so I'm not sure there's much room for bias of a substantial nature.
That’s good point. The authors of the original papers the “hungry judge” idea also did work on what they call “priming” which would include what you suggest. I don’t know if that has been replicated though.
1 reply →
It's not as if the judge does not have all the details of the case prior to sentencing. The order can't possibly supply more information than the fact that he just sat through the trial himself days or weeks prior. At least in the United States, the same judge who presides over a trial is the one who sentences the convicted. The only time a defendant gets different judges for anything is early in the process, like during arraignment.
9 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.
I think the person I responded to was talking about actual bias from the judges knowing the order, not about this study.
Yes, this study would absolutely be suspect if the order is not random. I was saying I am not sure if the order being based on severity would bias the judges, since my assumption would be that judges are aware of severity directly and don’t need to rely on ordering to deduce it.
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.
Using a benign example, imagine a day in traffic court, with cases distributed randomly.
According to the schedule, Officer A must be present at 8am, 930am, 1005am, 142pm, 315pm for their relevant cases.
Officer B must be present at 803am, 922am, etc through 4pm.
You've now got two officers effectively locked up for a full day.
Vs: Officer A cases, 8-12p Officer B cases, 1-4p
3 replies →
> Randomness introduces inefficiency
That's highly dependent on the situation. Ordering can introduce delays or inefficiencies in many situations.
Can you give some examples?
3 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?
I assume they meant 5th
1 reply →
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.
I feel like there's probably an excellent reason that the order is the way it is, due to the wonderful process of time.
This feels a lot like saying "let's just blow up the tax code and rewrite it!" And we end up generating the same 2 million lines of policy to close all of the loopholes all over again.
7 replies →