Of course there is a selection bias there. I was commenting on the statement that “there’s a broad social belief that the decision of judges are unbiased.”
I think that among those educated at state and private colleges (as opposed to community colleges or no college at all) that is mostly true. I don’t think that there are enough of those people to call it a “broad social belief”.
Here’s another highly politicized, mind killing example. There is the opinion that Europe and Australia have a broad social consensus against the death penalty, but time and time again polls show dramatic SUPPORT for putting certain classes of criminals to death.
In this case it is the BROAD SOCIAL CONSENSUS that is the flaw in the thinking. I mean, if this is about being less wrong, let’s not just work on the comfortable wrong shit, let’s face all of it.
The truth is that people aren’t unbiased. Most don’t even want to be. They just want other people to think they are.
I don’t know that “the upper middle class and the rich” really think judges are unbiased. Judges are assumed to be biased in any case which directly affects their own interests, or in which the judge knows any of the parties. Also, judges in high-profile positions are often assumed to have political biases—as is shown in the debates surrounding Senate confirmation hearings, as well as the recent judicial election in Wisconsin. Sometimes the judiciary in general is perceived to have a bias, such as being “soft on crime.”
What is not usual is to think that judges are strongly biased by how long it has been since their last meal. A lot of commenters on this thread have expressed skepticism on this point, and I do too.
Of course there is a selection bias there. I was commenting on the statement that “there’s a broad social belief that the decision of judges are unbiased.”
I think that among those educated at state and private colleges (as opposed to community colleges or no college at all) that is mostly true. I don’t think that there are enough of those people to call it a “broad social belief”.
Here’s another highly politicized, mind killing example. There is the opinion that Europe and Australia have a broad social consensus against the death penalty, but time and time again polls show dramatic SUPPORT for putting certain classes of criminals to death.
In this case it is the BROAD SOCIAL CONSENSUS that is the flaw in the thinking. I mean, if this is about being less wrong, let’s not just work on the comfortable wrong shit, let’s face all of it.
The truth is that people aren’t unbiased. Most don’t even want to be. They just want other people to think they are.
I don’t know that “the upper middle class and the rich” really think judges are unbiased. Judges are assumed to be biased in any case which directly affects their own interests, or in which the judge knows any of the parties. Also, judges in high-profile positions are often assumed to have political biases—as is shown in the debates surrounding Senate confirmation hearings, as well as the recent judicial election in Wisconsin. Sometimes the judiciary in general is perceived to have a bias, such as being “soft on crime.”
What is not usual is to think that judges are strongly biased by how long it has been since their last meal. A lot of commenters on this thread have expressed skepticism on this point, and I do too.