Are there any rationalist judges, or anyone studying with the intention to become a judge? It seems like an area where rationalist thinking could have a broader impact. For example, judges often have some discretion when deciding prison sentences and other punishments. They also have the ability to give detailed explanations of their judgements. Could a judge, through wise application of rationalist principles, influence the judicial system in a positive direction?

New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment

1 Answers sorted by

IANAL, but as I understand it, in the US, unless you're in a fairly high level appellate court, judges have lots of freedom in how they handle minor issues and manage their courtrooms, but very limited degrees of freedom in interpreting deeper legal issues. I think they also mostly have to work within the bounds of the evidence that lawyers, who are used to non-rationalist judges and juries, decide to present to them. I think it would be fascinating to think about how a judge with rationalist training and thinking styles might write their decisions and opinions differently, though.

Anyone who lives under a civil law system or inquisitorial system instead of a common law one, or under any other kind of legal system that's out there, I'd be very curious to hear from. 

3 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 7:39 PM

There are definitely practicing lawyers who are familiar with "the sequences", not sure about the judges specifically. Whether it makes them better lawyers compared to those who are not, is not at all clear. I also suspect that there would be plenty of disagreement on which direction is a/the positive one. 

Whether it makes them better lawyers compared to those who are not, is not at all clear. 

I can imagine that for a lawyer, rationalization is a more important skill than rationality. You get rewarded for convincing the judge and jury that your client is right, not for figuring out the truth.

I wonder what are the incentives for judges, though.

I'm not in the law field so don't know any judges or judges to be.

I would offer that in many (most?) cases, the judge is not supposed to offer new thoughts but instead follow precedents.

The legal field is often already very rigorous in applying analytic/rational frameworks to the new problems. The debate comes from which frameworks to use.

New to LessWrong?