Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure, but if formal proceedings can't be trusted to get to the truth, people will continue to call for punishment without waiting for the results of formal proceedings. People like Sebby who are offended by the unfairness of that should think about how to make the formal proceedings work better to identify and punish bad actors.
|
I'm not offended by it. I understand the urge to skip the adversarial and investigatory processes. The adversarial process in courts involves bullshitters competing against one another to see whose narrative tale makes the most sense to a jury of middle minded common people.
I believe the adversarial system should be done away with in most cases. Most humans are simply not adequate judges of what has or has not happened. They are swayed by emotion, they cannot process information adequately to see issues from all sides, and they're easily manipulated by presentation of a compelling narrative. The only proper jury member would be a person who was 100% logical, 0% emotional. This person does not exist.
But the cry to short circuit this flawed process is even worse than this flawed process. It's the worst of emotional reactions, often infused with a nice dose of mob-think and self-righteousness.
The fix, I think, would be to establish professional juries and truly dispassionate investigators for all issues, from Franken situations to crimes to civil actions. Pay these jurors well and keep them anonymous. Vet them for selection by giving them tests to assess their ability to think in a purely logical manner.
Instead of having prosecutors, have only investigators, whose sole charge is to assess the statistical likelihood of certain facts having occurred. Instead of charging someone with something, develop a list of potential facts and liable actors and then use a process to determine the most and least likely explanations of what occurred.
No more adversaries. No more "hammer and nail" issue in which prosecutors or claimants are compelled to seek the win at all costs.
And yes, a star chamber of smart people who could look at something like the Franken Affair and say, "As a threshold issue, of the punishments which may be meted out, loss of the Senate seat should not be included."
Some may say this is elitist. But if you've been involved in our current system, I think you'd agree, some form of enlightened logic-based system has to be employed. It's kind of like a hyper-logical JAMS or AAA for all situations.
I'd also use an algorithm to comb the evidence and facts and assess the veracity of any finding by a human jury or investigation. If the computer finds it's flawed, out it goes.
