Another brilliant application of the blockchain technology. Only instead of one person getting the 'right' result at the fastest time, everybody can bring in the result at the same time. I'm trying to think of reasons why this won't work and I can't seem to find any. Some come to mind: funds for the reward, size of the 'booths' fitting the courts, or maybe it won't be onsite. All these are filmsy, though.
I wonder what happens in the case of a split/hung jury.
That's good to hear; I go through the same exercise with myself and have the same result, hehe. Nice to hear confirmation from others.
I think "offsite" is definitely an option. At first it would be mindblowing and most people would want to see real people in the flesh, but courts could evolve to have jurors dialed in electronically. Once it was recognized that they have a real incentive to do the job well (no matter where they're located) then you stop needing them to be physically onsite.
(Maybe with some rare exceptions of things that you need to be physically there for to judge correctly.)
Kind of like a job that lets you work remotely from home. Most of the reason they want you in the office is to hold your feet to the fire, but if theoretically they knew you'd be working hard from home, a lot of jobs could just avoid the hassle of driving and it'd be the same thing.
Thanks for your feedback.
I agree. I think in the end it all comes down to the mechanism/proof that the job would be done without bias i.e the incentive. I think that's the most important part. That's what will make you say, 'hey I have to do the right thing, make the right decision.' And as long as there's a mechanism to make sure there's no collusion, i see no reason why we can't have a future like this!
Yup!! I agree exactly!