Hacker News Reader

Comment by alphazard | Hacker News Reader

Exactly this. A judge signing off on a warrant is essentially making a prediction that a party is guilty of something involving the target of the warrant. The judge should have skin in the game.

It could be tied to their salary. It could be a 3 strikes policy. Something they care about should be put on the line when they sign a warrant. If they get it wrong and the warrant was frivolous, they lose something. If they get it right, and the search produces exactly what they predicted, then they get something. Judges would very quickly turn away investigators with insufficient evidence. It would also produce some very wealthy judges who would be worthy of their title according to an objective measure. The best judges would be the wealthiest.

Needless to say, they shouldn't be presiding over the trial, which determines whether the warrant produces a guilty verdict.

View on HN

> If they get it right, and the search produces exactly what they predicted, then they get something.

Good grief, I can think of a variety of ways that this incentive would result in horrific corruption. Judicial impartiality is important and all too easily sullied; for instance, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

That would likely not work out because the overwhelming majority of criminal cases in the US end with a plea deal instead of going through a trial, which is another problem of its own.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...

> judge signing off on a warrant is essentially making a prediction that a party is guilty

No, they are absolutely not.

> A judge signing off on a warrant is essentially making a prediction that a party is guilty of something involving the target of the warrant.

At best that's ignoring a lot of nuance, at worst that's just flat-out incorrect.

When a judge signs off on a warrant, they are only saying that they agree with law enforcement that serving the warrant would help move a particular investigation forward, and that the actions they'd need to take to serve the warrant are legally supportable. That's it.

I think you're taking the law as written, noticing it doesn't say anything about predictions, and then assuming that predictions aren't what judges are supposed to be doing.

What I'm saying is that the system, as currently designed and implemented, reveals a judge's implicit beliefs, when they sign or veto a warrant. These beliefs paired with the result of a search directly reflect how good their "judgement" really is. And I'm suggesting that we make those beliefs explicit as predictions.

Aren't judges elected ?

If they are, having their hit track record fully publicly available would help. Not in detail of course, but aggregated by crime type for example.

It will be prone to abuse. But any system/solution will be. The trick is to find the one that is the least affected. Or when it is abused, doesn't come with huge side effects.

Some state and local judges are elected.

The Federal Judiciary is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Some are elected by the great unwashed masses and some others are appointed. You must examine the rules for the particular judgeship to know.

Not all judges, in particular Federal judges are all appointed.

Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They serve for life unless they are impeached.

I'd like it tied to their freedom. Signing off on absolute bullshit should be a trip to jail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com