There’s more to justice than empiricism. You have to use decision theory.
Decision theory is for policymakers, not jurors. The latter should be concerned exclusively with epistemic calculation.
(At least that’s how the system is supposed to work.)
Jurors sometimes have to rule based on how the law ought to be, rather than how it is.
“Have to”? It’s not even universally agreed that jury nullification is permissible, let alone obligatory.
What about “jury requests”?
There’s more to justice than empiricism. You have to use decision theory.
Decision theory is for policymakers, not jurors. The latter should be concerned exclusively with epistemic calculation.
(At least that’s how the system is supposed to work.)
Jurors sometimes have to rule based on how the law ought to be, rather than how it is.
“Have to”? It’s not even universally agreed that jury nullification is permissible, let alone obligatory.
What about “jury requests”?