http://www.justodians.org/index.htmlStatistical
Analysis Of Judicial Misconduct
Statistics
Put A Stop To Racial Profiling By N.J. State Police.
We Can Stop Judicial
Misconduct The Same Way.
Racial profiling has been
eradicated just like polio, and the vaccine is statistical analysis. For more
than 25 years, the New Jersey State police had targeted minorities in routine
traffic stops. This became widely known in New Jersey as being pulled over for
driving while black. But whenever this practice was challenged in court, the
officers would make up some nonsense probable cause that was impossible to
disprove. It wasn't until citizens started keeping statistics on traffic stops
that we were finally able to prove in court that racial profiling existed and
that it was epidemic. This effectively ended racial profiling.
Is it
reasonable to believe that police detain people solely because of race but
judges never do? Of course not; all other things being equal, White judges are
more likely to convict black people than white people. In divorce, women judges
are more likely find in favor of women and men judges are more likely to find in
favor of men. Judges will swear they are not biased and in fact some may not
even be aware that they are. Still other judges may have a personal agenda and
are blatantly biased because they know that with out statistical proof, we have
no means to challenge them.
If a cop detains you
without cause, it can ruin your entire day.
If a judge does it. It can ruin
your entire life.
So why aren't we applying statistical analysis where it can
make the most difference?
Because there is nothing to analyze. Our courts
aren't collecting any trial data.
Why not? Because they know that the numbers
will tell us which judges are administrating the law and which ones are making
their own.
If we want
data on Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Bias we will have to collect it
ourselves. Here's how.
ProjectCSPAN
See Below For More On This Topic
Let's Try A Simple Experiment
In your google search engine,
try typing "Statistics On Racial Profiling". I got 61 hits. That means, there
are at least 61 places the public can go to find out which cops are targeting
minorities.
Now try typing "Statistics On Judicial Misconduct" in to your
google search engine. I got Zero hits. That means that there aren't anyplaces
the public can go to find out which judges are abusing their
office.
Maybe it's unreasonable to assume "Misconduct" from just
statistics alone. So let's remove the "Mis" from Misconduct and try our search
again. Your search string will look as follows, ("Statistics on Judicial
Conduct"). I got Zero hits.
What about "Statistics on Judicial Bias"
Surprise! Zero Hits on Google.
Ok, lets remove our own bias from the
question. Try "statistical analysis of judicial findings" Again, Zero
Hits.
This experiment indicates that no one is collecting any statistics
about the decisions our judges are making and that there is no information that
can tell us which judges are administrating our laws and which ones are
adminstrating thier own agendas.
A Call For Scholarly Papers.
The benefits of Statistics are
to important to be ignored. Statistics extend our lives by identifying which
cars we are most likely to die in, which products are most likely to cause us
cancer, and which medicines are most likely to have side effects. Statistics
improve our lives by showing us how our public policies affect the lives of our
people. Statistics have been used to positively prove which teachers are helping
their students cheat on standardized tests. And statistics have been used locate
where serial killers live just from the knowledge of where their victims are
found. Still, statistical analysis is not simple. Even the science of
statistically measuring a baseball player's performance is only now starting to
be fully understood.
I am making a plea to all statisticians, economist,
information technologists, members of the justice community, lawmakers, and most
importantly all members of the public who think they have something to
contribute. I am asking for all scholarly papers and letters with your ideas on
how statistics can be applied to the measurement of judicial bias and for the
identification of judges who consistently engage in judical
misconduct.
Here are some of the issues that your papers might
address:
What specific questions should we be seeking to answer when
looking through trial data?
What specific trial data should be
collected?
Who will collect the data?
How will the data be
collected?
How will the data be published?
Who will Pay for the
collection, storage, and publication of the data?
What statistical methods
will be used to analyze the data?
How can we get legislation mandating the
collection and publication of trial data.
Please mail submissions to:mailto:johnshearing@gmail.com
All
Serious submissions will be posted here.
Quantitative
Analysis of Judicial DecisionMaking by Thaddeus Hwong, PhD Candidate Osgoode
Hall Law School, York University
Scientific
American: The Political Brain A recent brain-imaging study shows that our
political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias
Learn about typical
forms of Judicial Misconduct
Understanding
how and why our judges become corrupt
Discover why poor
people can't appeal and how this affects you.