Overcoming Bias

Share this post

Innocent Verdicts

www.overcomingbias.com

Discover more from Overcoming Bias

This is a blog on why we believe and do what we do, why we pretend otherwise, how we might do better, and what our descendants might do, if they don't all die.
Over 11,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

Innocent Verdicts

Robin Hanson
Jul 23, 2020
Share this post

Innocent Verdicts

www.overcomingbias.com
8
Share

From David Friedman’s Legal Systems Very Different from Ours:

Athenian Law: The Work of a Mad Economist …

Most law cases were either public or private. A public case corresponded roughly to our criminal cases; it was supposed to be for an offense that injured not merely a single person but the whole community. At one time such cases may have been prosecuted by magistrates but by our period that was possible only for minor charges. The ordinary procedure was for the case to be privately prosecuted by any male citizen who chose to do so. The prosecutor would, for many but not all sorts of cases, receive a substantial fraction of any resulting fine, sometimes as much as half, as his reward. If the case was based on the claim that the defendant was holding property that properly belonged to the state, a successful prosecution would result in half of the property forfeiting to the state, half to the prosecutor.

Such a system raises the risk of suits against innocent defendants believed to be rich, unpopular, or both. One solution was a provision of the law under which, in many public cases, a prosecutor who failed to get at least a fifth of the jurors to vote for conviction was himself both fined and barred from any future suits of the same kind. The fine was 1000 drachmas, roughly two years’ wages for an ordinary craftsman. It was also possible to charge a prosecutor with the crime of sycophancy, abusive prosecution, although such charges were limited to at most three citizens and three metics each year. (pp. 262-263)

On reflection this is a nice design feature, to discourage prosecuting the innocent. So I propose: every trial should have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and innocent. If the verdict is innocent, then not only does the accused go free, the other side is declared guilty of knowingly prosecuting the innocent. And punished somehow, perhaps including being fired and/or paying damages to the accused.

Share this post

Innocent Verdicts

www.overcomingbias.com
8
Share
8 Comments
Share this discussion

Innocent Verdicts

www.overcomingbias.com
seb
May 15

I don't think this is correct. I see it more as Not Proven is we think you did it but we can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Then Not Guilty from there's reasonable doubt through not sure either way to we think you're innocent.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
Overcoming Bias Commenter
May 15

Scotland actually has a three verdict system, 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'not proven'. In this system, 'not guilty' corresponds roughly to the jury actively believing the defendant is innocent. It seems like this is pointing to a similar idea to your categories. But I don't think there are any penalties to the prosecutor for a 'not guilty' verdict.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
6 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Robin Hanson
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing