> If they can't find anything harder than a set of odds, then judges have no place betting on them.
But this is how our entire legal system is set up. For criminal proceedings, we have to find the defendant 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. What is 'reasonable doubt' if not a (theoretically) quantifiable or parameterizeable representation of our belief that the defendant committed the criminal act?
We don't explicitly quantify this threshold as, eg. a 95% chance, but that's still the exact same process we require a jury to undergo, even if we don't attach quantifiable numbers to the results.
The jury can never return a probability of 1 (in statistical terms, 'almost certain'), or else the entire appeal system wouldn't exist.
I believe that the purpose of randomize juries could be said to exist because while there are parameters, no one person or entity knows all the parameters.
But this is how our entire legal system is set up. For criminal proceedings, we have to find the defendant 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. What is 'reasonable doubt' if not a (theoretically) quantifiable or parameterizeable representation of our belief that the defendant committed the criminal act?
We don't explicitly quantify this threshold as, eg. a 95% chance, but that's still the exact same process we require a jury to undergo, even if we don't attach quantifiable numbers to the results.
The jury can never return a probability of 1 (in statistical terms, 'almost certain'), or else the entire appeal system wouldn't exist.