There’s more to justice than empiricism. You have to use decision theory.
Decision theory is for policymakers, not jurors. The latter should be concerned exclusively with epistemic calculation.
(At least that’s how the system is supposed to work.)
Jurors sometimes have to rule based on how the law ought to be, rather than how it is.
“Have to”? It’s not even universally agreed that jury nullification is permissible, let alone obligatory.
What about “jury requests”?
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
There’s more to justice than empiricism. You have to use decision theory.
Decision theory is for policymakers, not jurors. The latter should be concerned exclusively with epistemic calculation.
(At least that’s how the system is supposed to work.)
Jurors sometimes have to rule based on how the law ought to be, rather than how it is.
“Have to”? It’s not even universally agreed that jury nullification is permissible, let alone obligatory.
What about “jury requests”?