Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Empirical studies of judicial decision-making show high v... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of rule-based admissibility rests on an empirical premise—that rules outperform case-by-case judgment over time—that has not been established.

    Empirical studies of judicial decision-making show high variance in outcomes for similar cases, suggesting rules would improve consistency.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of rule-based admissibili...

    Related

    Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of rule-based admissibili...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective