Many papers rely on how we randomly assign defendants to ADAs or judges who are systematically harsher or more lenient.
A troubling q.
If we randomly assign you to judges known to be harsher or less so, it’s ok.
If a judge flips a coin to be harsher, it violates due process.
A troubling q.
If we randomly assign you to judges known to be harsher or less so, it’s ok.
If a judge flips a coin to be harsher, it violates due process.
But … why?
Why is one sort of randomness okay but another not?
In one case, a coin toss sends you to the consistently harsher judge.
In the other, a single judge’s harshness is determined by a coin toss.
What is the real difference?
Why is one sort of randomness okay but another not?
In one case, a coin toss sends you to the consistently harsher judge.
In the other, a single judge’s harshness is determined by a coin toss.
What is the real difference?
There are superficial distinctions, sure. One is a judge consistently applying their ideology, the other is noise.
But, to the defendant? The one with the due process right? The result is basically the same.
But, to the defendant? The one with the due process right? The result is basically the same.
Feel like this is some sort of corollary to the Trolly Problem. Some sorts of randomness are acceptable level pulls, other ones are not. Wonder if there is some sort of regularity to it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
