There are other alternatives to the judgement by ignorant jurors vs judgement by AIs. In Sweden we don't have jury trials. Instead, cases are tried under a system where there are lay-judges (nämndemän) who assist the presiding judge, or judges (sometimes we have more than 1) with the trial. These are the 'peers'. They are appointed at th…
There are other alternatives to the judgement by ignorant jurors vs judgement by AIs. In Sweden we don't have jury trials. Instead, cases are tried under a system where there are lay-judges (nämndemän) who assist the presiding judge, or judges (sometimes we have more than 1) with the trial. These are the 'peers'. They are appointed at the municipal level by the political parties in proportion to how the municipality voted in the last election. Since we have proportional voting, and a good number of political parties, this is an unexceptional way to organise things. It cuts down on the practice of political parties weaponising the legal system in order to damage their political opponents. You'd have to change the way this is handled if you live under a 2-party system or with winner-takes-all voting.
The lay judge position does not pay well, but is very, very prestigious. And in order to be considered you have to study and pass an exam about the ins and outs of Swedish law, what is criminality, and the like. So you get a jury of your very well informed peers -- or at least that is the ideal. There is a certain amount of over-representation of 'wise older people who have seen a lot of life and who are retired, thus with plenty of time for these duties' but there are also a cohort of 'young people who understand the new technologies that didn't even exist a few years ago' in the system. Both sorts are needed. And all the lay judges can ask whatever questions they like, to draw whatever information they want out of the witnesses. So a strategy of 'keep the jury in the dark about X' does not work here. The lay judges are exceptionally curious people, and if they smell something fishy, they will ask questions until they are satisfied they understand things well enough.
I'd try to get something built along these lines before throwing in the towel and let the AIs judge everything.
That actually sounds really good. The most horrible part of our justice system is how the jury frequently isn't allowed to even hear the facts of the case because they are 'prejudicial'. If something that actually happened inclines a juror in one direction that is called evidence.
Precisely what an optimal system should look like. Yes, in the US it would require a separate layer of elections (sourcing Jefferson's "deputies") that is outside of the D/R paradigm.
There are other alternatives to the judgement by ignorant jurors vs judgement by AIs. In Sweden we don't have jury trials. Instead, cases are tried under a system where there are lay-judges (nämndemän) who assist the presiding judge, or judges (sometimes we have more than 1) with the trial. These are the 'peers'. They are appointed at the municipal level by the political parties in proportion to how the municipality voted in the last election. Since we have proportional voting, and a good number of political parties, this is an unexceptional way to organise things. It cuts down on the practice of political parties weaponising the legal system in order to damage their political opponents. You'd have to change the way this is handled if you live under a 2-party system or with winner-takes-all voting.
The lay judge position does not pay well, but is very, very prestigious. And in order to be considered you have to study and pass an exam about the ins and outs of Swedish law, what is criminality, and the like. So you get a jury of your very well informed peers -- or at least that is the ideal. There is a certain amount of over-representation of 'wise older people who have seen a lot of life and who are retired, thus with plenty of time for these duties' but there are also a cohort of 'young people who understand the new technologies that didn't even exist a few years ago' in the system. Both sorts are needed. And all the lay judges can ask whatever questions they like, to draw whatever information they want out of the witnesses. So a strategy of 'keep the jury in the dark about X' does not work here. The lay judges are exceptionally curious people, and if they smell something fishy, they will ask questions until they are satisfied they understand things well enough.
I'd try to get something built along these lines before throwing in the towel and let the AIs judge everything.
That actually sounds really good. The most horrible part of our justice system is how the jury frequently isn't allowed to even hear the facts of the case because they are 'prejudicial'. If something that actually happened inclines a juror in one direction that is called evidence.
Precisely what an optimal system should look like. Yes, in the US it would require a separate layer of elections (sourcing Jefferson's "deputies") that is outside of the D/R paradigm.