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.
The jury trial is a great example of something else ruined by 'the Science'. It probably worked well until the FBI became determined to bring in their fingerprints and polygraphs and psychologists. It was sort of only natural for well-heeled defendants to purchase the same weapons. I said ruined by the Science but it is strange how so many of our problems in this country can be traced back to a man in a skirt...
Aug 29, 2023·edited Aug 29, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
"Jury of peers" is an aristocratic anachronism. The Framers of the Constitution were of the landholding class; they appropriated this custom from the Magna Carta, which was also a document establishing the independence of the landed lords from their liege.
It's an absurdity, like many aspects of the legal system. The prosecutors are identified as "The People" and the case is framed as an action by the polity against the individual, as if public opinion were already united against the defendant, presumptions of innocence notwithstanding. The jury, who actually represent "the people", in some sense, are usually not peers of the defendant: they are law-abiding, in that they honor the State's claim on their time.
Despite these failings, it seems important that, if a human being is to be stripped of liberty and humanity, condemned to a foul dungeon and deprived of basic autonomy, that it not be on simple fiat decree.
Good points but the rural poor of yesteryear were I suspect more independent thinkers than the NPCs of today. They at least were less trusting of 'experts' not having spent thirteen years(minimum) of their lives being indoctrinated into expertolatry.
Actually this is precisely what I was going to write about the concept -- it was designed for landowners, not the hoi polloi. However the Mass. Body of Liberties lays down an explicitly universalist precedent. I still think the point is valid, there was some real failure to think beyond the context of a homogenous landowning class.
One particular trial of which I was a juror was quite amusing when I answered a rather ambiguous question by the prosecutor during jury selection. I responded the only way the question could be answered truthfully - with an ambiguous answer. The prosecutor proceeded to argue with me. The judge called us both before the bench and told the prosecutor "don't argue with the jurors". The amusing part was that I was selected to serve. When my name was called the prosecutors immediately grabbed their list of jurors to see what happened. It was obvious they meant to strike me. Anyway, I was glad to be on the jury as we found the defendant Not Guilty. It was absurd that the defendant was charged. This and a personal incident has made me quite jaundiced toward the justice system. There really are some bad actors in amongst them.
A lot of what the left branded as "racism" in criminal justice was in fact just the sorry defectiveness of the jury trial approach. Why else would the West Memphis Three be the most notorious miscarriage in contemporary times.
12 Angry Men is just a rote demonstration of the absurdity of the system dressed up in White Savior sentimentality. Like I think there would be a lot more common consciousness of how horrible and Soviet our courts are without the race problem distracting from the obvious.
The systems mentioned and the systems we have now and have had, is all based on two flawed beliefs - 1. that someone decides the individuals' and the collectives' destiny and 2. That all transactions are based on a system designed specifically to incite greed (because it is created through debt). We need to get our heads around these basic premises of what fuels society's motivations, and then we can build new foundations that incite surplus and abundance. It's really quite simple but the spells that are cast upon us, are difficult to see through.
Regarding anti-fat selection, it is in fact true that mid-century cameras were equipped with elaborate lever/hydraulic mechanisms to eject any obese persons outside of the field of vision when the shutter was activated. A better time...
It is one way to go. My instinct is that "deliberate primitivity" isn't possible, and will just turn into more state abuse. You need the explicitly elite element, noblesse oblige, to counteract esoteric technology rather than try to run a democratic system that pretends to forbid the same.
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.
The jury trial is a great example of something else ruined by 'the Science'. It probably worked well until the FBI became determined to bring in their fingerprints and polygraphs and psychologists. It was sort of only natural for well-heeled defendants to purchase the same weapons. I said ruined by the Science but it is strange how so many of our problems in this country can be traced back to a man in a skirt...
Juries are made of people: people are fallible; therefore we should get rid of juries?!
... and replace with something other than people?!
... which was programmed by ...?
What am I missing... or is this obviously bollocks (obscure legal technical term).
He literally didn't say any of the things that you say he said.
Thanks. You're probably right: I had to skim it very quickly.
Juries have a definition beyond people. Otherwise the word wouldn't exist. This is effortful misunderstanding.
"Jury of peers" is an aristocratic anachronism. The Framers of the Constitution were of the landholding class; they appropriated this custom from the Magna Carta, which was also a document establishing the independence of the landed lords from their liege.
It's an absurdity, like many aspects of the legal system. The prosecutors are identified as "The People" and the case is framed as an action by the polity against the individual, as if public opinion were already united against the defendant, presumptions of innocence notwithstanding. The jury, who actually represent "the people", in some sense, are usually not peers of the defendant: they are law-abiding, in that they honor the State's claim on their time.
Despite these failings, it seems important that, if a human being is to be stripped of liberty and humanity, condemned to a foul dungeon and deprived of basic autonomy, that it not be on simple fiat decree.
Good points but the rural poor of yesteryear were I suspect more independent thinkers than the NPCs of today. They at least were less trusting of 'experts' not having spent thirteen years(minimum) of their lives being indoctrinated into expertolatry.
Actually this is precisely what I was going to write about the concept -- it was designed for landowners, not the hoi polloi. However the Mass. Body of Liberties lays down an explicitly universalist precedent. I still think the point is valid, there was some real failure to think beyond the context of a homogenous landowning class.
One particular trial of which I was a juror was quite amusing when I answered a rather ambiguous question by the prosecutor during jury selection. I responded the only way the question could be answered truthfully - with an ambiguous answer. The prosecutor proceeded to argue with me. The judge called us both before the bench and told the prosecutor "don't argue with the jurors". The amusing part was that I was selected to serve. When my name was called the prosecutors immediately grabbed their list of jurors to see what happened. It was obvious they meant to strike me. Anyway, I was glad to be on the jury as we found the defendant Not Guilty. It was absurd that the defendant was charged. This and a personal incident has made me quite jaundiced toward the justice system. There really are some bad actors in amongst them.
A lot of what the left branded as "racism" in criminal justice was in fact just the sorry defectiveness of the jury trial approach. Why else would the West Memphis Three be the most notorious miscarriage in contemporary times.
12 Angry Men is just a rote demonstration of the absurdity of the system dressed up in White Savior sentimentality. Like I think there would be a lot more common consciousness of how horrible and Soviet our courts are without the race problem distracting from the obvious.
The systems mentioned and the systems we have now and have had, is all based on two flawed beliefs - 1. that someone decides the individuals' and the collectives' destiny and 2. That all transactions are based on a system designed specifically to incite greed (because it is created through debt). We need to get our heads around these basic premises of what fuels society's motivations, and then we can build new foundations that incite surplus and abundance. It's really quite simple but the spells that are cast upon us, are difficult to see through.
Very adroit insight! Well done!
They dumb people down to the point where they have no judgment, then offer AI justice as a solution. Hegel is alive and well.
Regarding anti-fat selection, it is in fact true that mid-century cameras were equipped with elaborate lever/hydraulic mechanisms to eject any obese persons outside of the field of vision when the shutter was activated. A better time...
It is one way to go. My instinct is that "deliberate primitivity" isn't possible, and will just turn into more state abuse. You need the explicitly elite element, noblesse oblige, to counteract esoteric technology rather than try to run a democratic system that pretends to forbid the same.