deleted by creator
Would that equate loss to a guilty person getting away over convicting an innocent person? Not sure if I’m expressing this great but I mean like people would be naturally and organically aligned with a reluctance to convict that is compatible with presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard?
Like “better a 1000 guilty people walk than a single innocent be wrongly convicted”
deleted by creator
Emotions are just local variables 😅
deleted by creator
The term you’re looking for is crowdsourcing.
I’ll just throw this into the mix: the so-called “wisdom of crowds”. I’m not sure if it really applies to juries. But I think the idea that a group of people will be smarter and less biased (or their biases will cancel each other out) is a common notion. It also dilutes the feeling of individual responsibility to some degree.
The wisdom of crowds only works when the inputs are independent.
People are meaningfully biased to conform to group opinions.
Juries are older than computing.
So is the abacus
*digital computing. A computer used to be a job, not a machine. A job mostly done by women
When was the for automated loop (iterating) invented?
Humans aren’t turing machines, that question is irrelevant to the conversation
Next post: “Are abacuses a form of human power computing or something?”
I dont think im that predictable 🥸
In Soviet Russia, abacus counts you!
deleted by creator
Juries are a way to say even the idiots believe X. There’s enough people on juries that 1 or 2 will refuse to believe the facts and evidence staring them in the face, getting a unanimous verdict requires skill or having a very persuasive juror.
