I think the coolest idea for justice systems that I’ve heard of (dunno its origin) is to have decisions done though prediction markets.
There’s a couple ways I can see to keep it grounded to reality. The ‘jury’ (which would include people that think they can make money doing it) could not be given all of the evidence all the time, and their predictions would be checked (and their bets payed off) on the cases where they were withholding strong evidence.
There could also be two markets, and they have to predict the other juries verdict (possibly given more evidence).
Hell, even play money prediction markets do pretty well and you don’t have to worry about reliably confirming actual guilt for payoffs. Just getting people to think with the “my money!” part of their brains helps.
Of course, there are all sorts of details to figure out, but it shouldn’t be hard to beat the consensus of 12 people with no stake in the matter that were selected for being too dumb to get out of jury duty.
I think the coolest idea for justice systems that I’ve heard of (dunno its origin) is to have decisions done though prediction markets.
There’s a couple ways I can see to keep it grounded to reality. The ‘jury’ (which would include people that think they can make money doing it) could not be given all of the evidence all the time, and their predictions would be checked (and their bets payed off) on the cases where they were withholding strong evidence.
There could also be two markets, and they have to predict the other juries verdict (possibly given more evidence).
Hell, even play money prediction markets do pretty well and you don’t have to worry about reliably confirming actual guilt for payoffs. Just getting people to think with the “my money!” part of their brains helps.
Of course, there are all sorts of details to figure out, but it shouldn’t be hard to beat the consensus of 12 people with no stake in the matter that were selected for being too dumb to get out of jury duty.