2023-09-08T04:32:21+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi They can cross-examine the witness too? And be able to object to certain lines of questioning? Or are we getting rid of the defendants right to confront their accuser. And at that point you need a judge and might as well have a trial.
2023-09-08T04:31:09+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi The difficulty is that averages aren't interchangeable here. These are particular people we are talking about with particular circumstances. By choosing what set of people make up the average you are inherently making a judgement on their individual cases.
2023-09-08T04:29:06+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi rket on who will be charged with a crime, and then another on what crimes will occur, or who will commit crimes
2023-09-08T04:28:33+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi ires the information found in a trial regardless... Which would then require making all the little rulings on every little objection and piece of information. Maybe your answer is that we make a prediction market on sentencing too, but at that point why not make a prediction ma
2023-09-08T04:27:06+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi Yeah but what level of personal information should just be reveal is also questionable, it's not like you can just reveal all personal information by default. A judge would then have to decide what can be revealed, and also the sentence even in event of a conviction which requ
2023-09-08T04:24:07+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi Trials surface information. Testimony from witnesses would not be available prior to trial. Eh, I know, but that's like saying that we should make Iran and Russia US States because right now the world is so screwed up :P
2023-09-08T04:22:01+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi You are assuming right now that you get to know that they are rich in the "DUI markets" if they are mixed in to normal people, normal people would have a much higher chance of basically "throwing the match".
2023-09-08T04:15:06+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi DUIs are incredibly common especially among the rich and have a maximum sentence of 6 months. Do rich people just get away with DUIs? It's not the money-making part of this that is most objectionably bad, it's that the money-making part makes it impossible to get at the truth.
2023-09-08T04:11:13+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi ies of a given a case. Benjamin Franklin thought "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer", reasonable people can believe that or even higher. https://t.co/VkAWImY1Pm
2023-09-08T04:09:04+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi I do not think that we should be declaring guilty people that have a 50% chance of being convicted, or 60 or 70 or 80 or 90, because the problem with all that is that the prediction market decides on an average, with no notion of the uncertainty that comes with the peculiarit...