>Randomness introduces inefficiency which implies delay
That assumes that the previous arrangement, in the form of sequential escalation, was a pre-existing state of nature that came at no cost of effort. And that randomness has to be introduced after the fact, at a new and extra cost.
But I think if cases were ordered without any specifically intended sequence of any kind, that starting point would be closer to randomness than the currently existing escalation. So randomness would cost less, not more.
What does that even mean in this context?
The amount of cases to be processed doesn't change regardless of the order, and the amount of time and attention directed toward each shouldn't either, otherwise you have a much bigger issue.
But that's not how it's currently done (at least I don't think and nobody in the comments or article is suggesting so), and escalation in severity doesn't have anything to do with officers or with how efficient you are with officer time.
But if the order stated by OP is accurate, they're not ordered by the officer who needs to show up, they're ordered by severity. Severity might correlate by officer, but probably won't.
Putting harder cases to the end of the queue gives less time to them. This may result in judges speeding the process by giving a case less consideration and thus increasing the chance of a mistake. This may result in postponing the case for another day because too little time remains today, so delaying it further.
OTOH simple cases are likely the majority of cases. Putting them first lets the majority of, well, users of the judiciary system get served faster.
To be clear, are you talking about US Constitution amendments? If yes, I am confused. (Ignore for a moment that we are talking about Israeli jurisprudence.)
US 4th: It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
US 15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Why is either of these relevant in US jurisprudence?
These cases were in Israel. So if you mean the fourth and fifteenth amendments to the US Constitution, they are very unlikely to apply (I’m leaving some room because I don’t know anything about Israeli government)
Doesn't this ordering also go against additional delay, since it expedites misdemeanors at the expense of felonies? Cases should just be tried in the order they were submitted.
I feel like there's probably an excellent reason that the order is the way it is, due to the wonderful process of time.
This feels a lot like saying "let's just blow up the tax code and rewrite it!" And we end up generating the same 2 million lines of policy to close all of the loopholes all over again.
> I feel like there's probably an excellent reason that the order is the way it is, due to the wonderful process of time.
But this assumes that the process of time is tending towards the better. Each change that was made was surely made on the basis of experience and created a local improvement, but that doesn't mean that they operate well together.
(Nor, of course, does it mean that they are likely to be so easily fixed that it can be done in a tossed-off HN comment.)
> Yes, this I generally believe, at least as far as societal maturity is concerned.
That's probably too big a discussion for here, but, on the institutional rather than the societal level, is that what you observe? Certainly it seems to me that institutions just accumulate more and more cruft over time, and, though "throw it out and re-write it" is, as well documented, rarely the right answer, neither is "trust that things are as they are because time has optimized them."
Cruft can be good. If you give everyone a chance to speak on any issue, it's extremely slow, but also the most egalitarian. When societies move too fast, large groups of people are invariably marginalized.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" etc.
I do think institutions, while extremely flawed, are currently the best versions of themselves. Very difficult to measure, of course. Rome was the best version of itself until the second it began to collapse.
I'm not a history buff, but believe deeply that it's a predictor of the future. Are there historical examples you can think of where the institutions were better than they are today?
> I'm not a history buff, but believe deeply that it's a predictor of the future. Are there historical examples you can think of where the institutions were better than they are today?
The problems with this question are at least two. First, there is no fixed definition of "better," so that two people might disagree about any example even if they agree on the facts. For example:
> I do think institutions, while extremely flawed, are currently the best versions of themselves. Very difficult to measure, of course. Rome was the best version of itself until the second it began to collapse.
While I wish I shared your optimism, I also disagree with your example! It seems clear to me that a society that is about to collapse is likely not its best self, and that surely there was a local maximum of Roman "goodness," however it's measured, some time after its founding but well before its collapse.
Second, that the examples I know best are likely to be the examples in which I have a personal interest, and so, inevitably, a bias that prevents me from judging them dispassionately.
In that spirit, as a teacher, I think that most, let's say for specificity, US universities were much better in the period immediately following the GI bill than they are today. Their "corporatification" is, to me, a huge step backwards. But then, I am a university teacher, so, though I can speak from a position of knowledge, I can hardly be trusted as an unbiased judge of in what way universities can best serve society.
Randomness introduces inefficiency which implies delay