One common theme I see in the other comments is that the justice system is just way too slow and underequipped to handle every case properly. It might be fruitful to focus on some way of making the justice system more efficient while maintaining roughly the same output as before.
I’m not a lawyer, but one possibility occurs to me: how about a time limit on each section of a trial? Similar to some debate formats: prosecution gets X minutes to introduce the case, defense gets Y minutes to respond, and so on, up to a limited number of segments which can only be extended at the judge’s discretion due to new evidence coming to light.
This would mean that complex and/or high profile cases would receive much much less time than they otherwise would, but that might be worth it if this system can be shown to nearly always arrive at the same conclusion (or, given the ideals of the US justice system, if any error tends to be in favor of the defendant).
Anyone have any data on the distribution of trial lengths? That would tell us if it would be better overall to optimize short trials to be a little bit shorter or to optimize very long trials to be short. In other words, would it be more effective overall to reduce the duration of OJ Simpson style trials to only a few days long, or to reduce breaking-and-entering trial durations by 20%?
I like the written questions thing, but I don’t think the jury should have the ability to grant or deny additional time, for two reasons:
Since we’re talking about an inexpert jury here (right? I know somebody proposed an expert jury below), they’ll need to be learning about the law as they go. If they have to learn about what conditions ought to mean additional time should or should not be granted, that’s taking away time and effort away that they could be using to learn about the evidence and the relevant laws.
More importantly, it would reintroduce the problem of lawyers being able to delay cases for as long as they can (which they will of course do if things look like they aren’t going their way). In a short time, it’s probably easier to convince a jury that you need more time then it is to convince them that the evidence points one way or another. I can imagine the system becoming one where extra time is granted nearly always, and the “Do you think the trial should continue?” question to the jury seen as just a formality.
Well, yeah. Most trials won’t be open-and-shut. The point is, the jury can effectively say at any point, “enough of this bullshit, we’re ready to make a decision.” Lawyers on both sides would be motivated to present their strongest evidence first, and even a jury inexperienced in intricacies of law would likely be able to recognize who’s got something to say and who’s just stalling for time.
The downside is that we remember the last things the best. So if the most important things are presented first, their importance will be partly forgotten.
It is worse when the important things are presented in the middle. We are better at remembering both the first things (primacy effect) and last things (recency effect).
One common theme I see in the other comments is that the justice system is just way too slow and underequipped to handle every case properly. It might be fruitful to focus on some way of making the justice system more efficient while maintaining roughly the same output as before.
I’m not a lawyer, but one possibility occurs to me: how about a time limit on each section of a trial? Similar to some debate formats: prosecution gets X minutes to introduce the case, defense gets Y minutes to respond, and so on, up to a limited number of segments which can only be extended at the judge’s discretion due to new evidence coming to light.
This would mean that complex and/or high profile cases would receive much much less time than they otherwise would, but that might be worth it if this system can be shown to nearly always arrive at the same conclusion (or, given the ideals of the US justice system, if any error tends to be in favor of the defendant).
Anyone have any data on the distribution of trial lengths? That would tell us if it would be better overall to optimize short trials to be a little bit shorter or to optimize very long trials to be short. In other words, would it be more effective overall to reduce the duration of OJ Simpson style trials to only a few days long, or to reduce breaking-and-entering trial durations by 20%?
What about making it the jury’s option to grant or deny additional time for explanation, in addition to letting them submit written questions?
I like the written questions thing, but I don’t think the jury should have the ability to grant or deny additional time, for two reasons:
Since we’re talking about an inexpert jury here (right? I know somebody proposed an expert jury below), they’ll need to be learning about the law as they go. If they have to learn about what conditions ought to mean additional time should or should not be granted, that’s taking away time and effort away that they could be using to learn about the evidence and the relevant laws.
More importantly, it would reintroduce the problem of lawyers being able to delay cases for as long as they can (which they will of course do if things look like they aren’t going their way). In a short time, it’s probably easier to convince a jury that you need more time then it is to convince them that the evidence points one way or another. I can imagine the system becoming one where extra time is granted nearly always, and the “Do you think the trial should continue?” question to the jury seen as just a formality.
Well, yeah. Most trials won’t be open-and-shut. The point is, the jury can effectively say at any point, “enough of this bullshit, we’re ready to make a decision.” Lawyers on both sides would be motivated to present their strongest evidence first, and even a jury inexperienced in intricacies of law would likely be able to recognize who’s got something to say and who’s just stalling for time.
The downside is that we remember the last things the best. So if the most important things are presented first, their importance will be partly forgotten.
It is worse when the important things are presented in the middle. We are better at remembering both the first things (primacy effect) and last things (recency effect).