It takes a lot of effort to understand all the evidence that goes into all the cases where a prosecutor charges people to evaluate the prosecutor. If you have the prosecutor summarize the strength of the evidence that evaluation gets easier.
That’s true, but I think you’re being very optimistic, both in the ability of defendants and defense council to ignore or evaluate information the other side in an adversarial system claims is their true opinion, and in the ability and interest of the public in properly evaluating the job performance of prosecutors in local elections based on actual data. I think both are possible, and would be very valuable, but can’t be achieved without much deeper and broader reforms to make the underlying justice system more open, transparent, and trustworthy.
I don’t think you can easily do a trial because it’s a systematic intervention that needs to run a few years for people to adept to the new system before it leads it’s provides most of it’s benefits.
Sorry, I didn’t mean a trial as an experiment, I meant literally running legal trials this way, where in general the prosecutor that tries a case is not the one that produces the conviction probability estimate. Then, grade each both on the accuracy of their assessments, and separately on their conviction rates in trials they prosecute. I’d say either the one trying the case or a separate third prosecutor should have final say on which charges to bring. I think this would eliminate a lot of the potential for perverse incentives.
That’s true, but I think you’re being very optimistic, both in the ability of defendants and defense council to ignore or evaluate information the other side in an adversarial system claims is their true opinion
At would expect that in the beginning after the reform defendants and defense council would not trust the probability at all.
I would expect that trust in the numbers will only come when the system works well that they provide valid information.
I think both are possible, and would be very valuable, but can’t be achieved without much deeper and broader reforms to make the underlying justice system more open, transparent, and trustworthy.
Good political reforms aren’t about doing one thing but multiple things. There’s a reason why Obamacare is 906 pages.
That’s true, but I think you’re being very optimistic, both in the ability of defendants and defense council to ignore or evaluate information the other side in an adversarial system claims is their true opinion, and in the ability and interest of the public in properly evaluating the job performance of prosecutors in local elections based on actual data. I think both are possible, and would be very valuable, but can’t be achieved without much deeper and broader reforms to make the underlying justice system more open, transparent, and trustworthy.
Sorry, I didn’t mean a trial as an experiment, I meant literally running legal trials this way, where in general the prosecutor that tries a case is not the one that produces the conviction probability estimate. Then, grade each both on the accuracy of their assessments, and separately on their conviction rates in trials they prosecute. I’d say either the one trying the case or a separate third prosecutor should have final say on which charges to bring. I think this would eliminate a lot of the potential for perverse incentives.
At would expect that in the beginning after the reform defendants and defense council would not trust the probability at all.
I would expect that trust in the numbers will only come when the system works well that they provide valid information.
Good political reforms aren’t about doing one thing but multiple things. There’s a reason why Obamacare is 906 pages.
On those points I completely agree.