Item — HN Reader

I think we like to believe that judges are impartial, unemotional, and objective. And they should be.

Maybe this idea is too ahead of its time, but:

I wonder if there could be an automatic test of judges' ability to maintain these traits. For example, every year a fake case comes before them in which a clearly innocent defendent is particularly rude and disrespectful of the system. If the judge shows an inability to separate their own ego from the ruling (e.g. penalizing the innocent indignant party) then the judge gets further review.

I think such "abuse tests" could be effective ways to vet many people in positions of power, particularly the executive branch (e.g. police).

2 comments

You mean like the TSA tests where drugs, weapons, etc. get through 80% of the time? (https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...)

Interesting idea, but I think everyone in the government is more interested in collecting a steady paycheck than in being effective.

Interesting thought. It’s like pentesting ethics!

There would be a lot of practical issues, though. And people in power have no motivation to pass these laws, so they’d exaggerate the problems even more. They might say that the court system is already stressed, innocent people are waiting in jail for trial, we can’t afford such a distraction.

But honestly I think you’ve struck at the core of a major problem in modern society. It’s too easy for the government to take rights away, and too hard for a citizen to take them back. Automation is a great solution to that asymmetry; I think suggestions like yours are on the right track.

In 40 years the court speak will consist entirely of insults.

the estimate of 500 years from Idiocracy has certainly been severely adjusted!