众包和数据分析:新的结算工具

Bernard H. Chao, C. Robertson, D. Yokum
{"title":"众包和数据分析:新的结算工具","authors":"Bernard H. Chao, C. Robertson, D. Yokum","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3171186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By protecting the right to a jury, the State and Federal Constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. However actual trials are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials, and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. Even as settlement may be desirable, it is sometimes difficult to resolve a dispute. Parties naturally view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic, seeking unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions. \r\n\r\nThis article describes a novel method of incorporating layperson perspectives to provide parties more accurate information about the value of their case. Specifically, we suggest that working with mediators or settlement judges, the parties should create mini-trials and then recruit hundreds of online mock jurors to render decisions. By applying modern statistical techniques to these results, the mediators can show the parties the likelihood of possible outcomes and also collect qualitative information about strengths and weaknesses for each side. These data will counter the parties’ unrealistic views and thereby facilitate settlement.","PeriodicalId":330356,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crowdsourcing & Data Analytics: The New Settlement Tools\",\"authors\":\"Bernard H. Chao, C. Robertson, D. Yokum\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3171186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By protecting the right to a jury, the State and Federal Constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. However actual trials are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials, and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. Even as settlement may be desirable, it is sometimes difficult to resolve a dispute. Parties naturally view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic, seeking unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions. \\r\\n\\r\\nThis article describes a novel method of incorporating layperson perspectives to provide parties more accurate information about the value of their case. Specifically, we suggest that working with mediators or settlement judges, the parties should create mini-trials and then recruit hundreds of online mock jurors to render decisions. By applying modern statistical techniques to these results, the mediators can show the parties the likelihood of possible outcomes and also collect qualitative information about strengths and weaknesses for each side. These data will counter the parties’ unrealistic views and thereby facilitate settlement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3171186\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3171186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过保护陪审团的权利,州和联邦宪法承认由非专业人员解决民事和刑事纠纷的基本价值。然而,实际的审判相对较少,部分原因是当事人寻求避免审判的风险和成本,法院寻求有效地清理案卷。尽管解决争端可能是可取的,但有时解决争端是困难的。当事人自然会从不同的角度看待他们的案件,而这些角度往往导致双方都过于乐观,寻求不合理的大或不合理的小解决方案。本文描述了一种结合外行观点的新方法,为当事人提供有关其案件价值的更准确的信息。具体来说,我们建议与调解员或和解法官合作,双方应该创建小型审判,然后招募数百名在线模拟陪审员来做出裁决。通过将现代统计技术应用于这些结果,调解员可以向各方展示可能结果的可能性,并收集有关各方优势和劣势的定性信息。这些数据将反驳各方不切实际的观点,从而促进解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Crowdsourcing & Data Analytics: The New Settlement Tools
By protecting the right to a jury, the State and Federal Constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. However actual trials are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials, and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. Even as settlement may be desirable, it is sometimes difficult to resolve a dispute. Parties naturally view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic, seeking unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions. This article describes a novel method of incorporating layperson perspectives to provide parties more accurate information about the value of their case. Specifically, we suggest that working with mediators or settlement judges, the parties should create mini-trials and then recruit hundreds of online mock jurors to render decisions. By applying modern statistical techniques to these results, the mediators can show the parties the likelihood of possible outcomes and also collect qualitative information about strengths and weaknesses for each side. These data will counter the parties’ unrealistic views and thereby facilitate settlement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信