No
People aren't machines and don't weigh data the way machines do.
It's more like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
Than this.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
17 points (70.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26753 readers
1292 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Would that equate loss to a guilty person getting away over convicting an innocent person? Not sure if I'm expressing this great but I mean like people would be naturally and organically aligned with a reluctance to convict that is compatible with presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard?
Like "better a 1000 guilty people walk than a single innocent be wrongly convicted"
I think whoever framed the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt felt that way.
Jurors themselves are complicated. Some people are racist, some people are just hateful, some people respect authority so much that they'll just believe whatever the district attorney says. All of these conditions can create a situation where the jury won't reach consensus easily .
And pretty much everybody just wants to get back to brunch and taking care of their families.
I think what you are speaking to is values. What I'm talking about is emotions as they are felt in the moment and how those will affect a jury's outcome.
Hence people are not computers.
Emotions are just local variables 😅
Noise in a RNG. Hungry, more likely to give into majority opinion so I can get back to brunch!
The term you're looking for is crowdsourcing.
I'll just throw this into the mix: the so-called "wisdom of crowds". I'm not sure if it really applies to juries. But I think the idea that a group of people will be smarter and less biased (or their biases will cancel each other out) is a common notion. It also dilutes the feeling of individual responsibility to some degree.
The wisdom of crowds only works when the inputs are independent.
People are meaningfully biased to conform to group opinions.
Juries are older than computing.
So is the abacus
Next post: "Are abacuses a form of human power computing or something?"
I dont think im that predictable 🥸
In Soviet Russia, abacus counts you!
*digital computing. A computer used to be a job, not a machine. A job mostly done by women
When was the for automated loop (iterating) invented?
Humans aren't turing machines, that question is irrelevant to the conversation
Juries are a way to say even the idiots believe X. There's enough people on juries that 1 or 2 will refuse to believe the facts and evidence staring them in the face, getting a unanimous verdict requires skill or having a very persuasive juror.