Type:

Other

Description:

One can conceptualize a legal rule as a mapping from a set of facts (a "scenario") onto an outcome, which can be idealized as "affirmative" or "negative". Among courts with more than one judge, however, that legal rule may be thought of as a composite of (1) a set of functions by which each judge maps some subset of the scenario onto the judge's preferred outcome and (2) an aggregation rule (such as majority rule) that is used to determine the outcome of the case. This Demonstration shows how such a system results in decision rules—"the law"—that reflect the views of no single justice and creates cases that, while decided differently, are, from the perspective of many judges and observers, logically "indistinguishable". You select the threshold fraction of total votes required for an "affirmative" court decision. By default, this fraction is set at 1/2, meaning that it takes more than 50% of the votes to achieve an affirmative decision. You select the number of "factions" on the court, which represents the number of decision functions used by all the judges. So, if a court has nine members, two of whom see the law one way, three of whom see the law another way, and four of whom see the law still another, there are three factions. You then select how many judges are in each faction. For each judge, you then select the "bits" of data within the scenario they deem relevant. A plot appears to the right showing your selection: black is relevant, white is irrelevant. For each faction, you also select a decision rule that maps the bits of data that faction believes to be relevant onto an outcome. A grid appears to the right of this control showing standard enumerations of the chosen decision rule. The left column shows the standard enumeration on the assumption that only the bits of data the judge actually uses are relevant (the "narrow rule"); the right column shows the enumeration of the equivalent rule on the assumption that all the data in the scenario is relevant (the "broad rule"). The "narrow rule" thus can range from 0 to ... , where ... is the number of bits that faction considers to be relevant. The equivalent "broad rule" can range from 0 to ... , where ... is the maximum number (five) of relevant bits. Hovering your mouse over these enumeration numbers produces a decision tree for the rule in which the symbols ... reflect the first through fifth factual bits. The Demonstration computes and displays the enumeration of the actual decision rule produced when the judges use their individual decision rules to vote. It then produces a chart showing, for each faction, a list of perceived incoherencies. An "incoherency" exists when at least two scenarios that the judge thinks should have the same outcome end up having a different outcome because of the aggregation of votes. Each incoherency is visualized as an array showing the scenarios that the faction thinks should be treated the same and a pie chart showing the fraction of times the case will in fact be decided affirmatively and the fraction of times the case will in fact be decided negatively. If there are more than six incoherent scenarios for a faction, the display is truncated to show only the first six.

Subjects:

    Education Levels:

      Keywords:

      EUN,LOM,LRE4,work-cmr-id:397151,http://demonstrations.wolfram.com:http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/LegalIncoherence/,ilox,learning resource exchange,LRE metadata application profile,LRE

      Language:

      Access Privileges:

      Public - Available to anyone

      License Deed:

      Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

      Collections:

      None
      This resource has not yet been aligned.
      Curriki Rating
      'NR' - This resource has not been rated
      NR
      'NR' - This resource has not been rated

      This resource has not yet been reviewed.

      Not Rated Yet.

      Non-profit Tax ID # 203478467