| | |
|
JuliaS-FirstPaper 15 - 14 Feb 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | RE: Adam, that's a great point. Class implications are certainly a huge concern. The argument might go: If the case clearly lends itself to one particular conclusion, assuming the market is thick enough, it would be extremely difficult to manipulate. A rich man buying millions of dollars of stock in his own innocence would not be able to tip the market if all the other speculators were convinced of his guilt. If it is less clear which way the case should be decided, a wealthy investor could potentially influence a close market. But is that really much different than our current system? A wealthy or well-connected suspect can afford expensive representation and jury consultants whose job is to tip the jury is cases where the verdict is not patently clear - which is essentially the same type of manipulation as a wealthy investor who tips the market by buying lots of shares. Moreover, if we allowed for speculators to advocate, it might be more financially prudent for a defendant to focus on effectively advocating for his desired verdict than to merely buy up his own stock. Either way, of course, this is not ideal - we do not want people buying verdicts, so to speak. But Frank would tell us that they already do. There is a class bias in our current system, we try to minimize and ignore it, but it's still there. The market system is certainly no better in this regard, but it's arguably not any worse. And at least, in a certain sense, it's more honest. (see below) | |
>
> |
-
- Very compelling points. What if the case dealt with the rights of a highly unpopular minority. Clearly we have seen courts fudge the law to do some bad stuff to minority groups (WW2 era internment, for example), but we have also seen the reverse effect (Brown, Hamdi). While it isn't central to your paper, I wonder how minority rights would be affected by the proposal. -- AdamCarlis 14 Feb. 2008
| | | But of course, concerns about the nature and legitimacy of our justice system still prevail. Those kinds of issues are what ultimately make it a thought experiment rather than a serious proposal.
Shantih, shantih, shantih. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |