Comment by mvkel
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
>Vs: Officer A cases, 8-12p Officer B cases, 1-4p
But that's not how it's currently done (at least I don't think and nobody in the comments or article is suggesting so), and escalation in severity doesn't have anything to do with officers or with how efficient you are with officer time.
But if the order stated by OP is accurate, they're not ordered by the officer who needs to show up, they're ordered by severity. Severity might correlate by officer, but probably won't.
1 reply →
> Randomness introduces inefficiency
That's highly dependent on the situation. Ordering can introduce delays or inefficiencies in many situations.
Can you give some examples?
Putting harder cases to the end of the queue gives less time to them. This may result in judges speeding the process by giving a case less consideration and thus increasing the chance of a mistake. This may result in postponing the case for another day because too little time remains today, so delaying it further.
OTOH simple cases are likely the majority of cases. Putting them first lets the majority of, well, users of the judiciary system get served faster.
2 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
I thought it was the 6th amendment:
"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
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.
This assumes some of the the 2 millions lines weren’t written specifically to introduce loopholes.
> I feel like there's probably an excellent reason that the order is the way it is, due to the wonderful process of time.
But this assumes that the process of time is tending towards the better. Each change that was made was surely made on the basis of experience and created a local improvement, but that doesn't mean that they operate well together.
(Nor, of course, does it mean that they are likely to be so easily fixed that it can be done in a tossed-off HN comment.)
5 replies →