"The hungry judge effect is a finding that judges were more inclined to be lenient after a meal but more severe before the break."

@brainwashingdetergent4322

Жыл бұрын

That’s a terrible reality.

@johnrodrigues2018

Жыл бұрын

Yeah its called being in a good mood lol

I like how this entire series comes down to "Most things cannot be solved with math," and "Most things are not black and white," substantiated by math and black text on white paper.

@VentusTheSox

Жыл бұрын

Cute pfp

@DeenBoi

Жыл бұрын

fuyyy

@deleted-something

Жыл бұрын

U

@phoenixclifford5763

Жыл бұрын

I think it's a whiteboard actually

@m4rt_

Жыл бұрын

There was actually a court case that caused courts to not accept statistics/probability as evidence.

I always liked the saying "We have a legal system where legal stuff happens, not a justice system."

@fiusionmaster3241

Жыл бұрын

True m8

@harmoneyes

Жыл бұрын

I like this quote

@JohnFKennedy420

Жыл бұрын

Well simply don’t commit crimes and you’ll probably never have to deal with the justice system or the “legal system” as you call it.

@OneEyeShadow

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnFKennedy420 I see you don't understand how the legal system works~

@atleyf3500

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnFKennedy420 except when you are wrongly convicted, a thing that can happen sometimes. Cops planting drugs on innocents or people being framed for crimes so it's quickly done, to not draw public attention are very real problems that permanate the legal system

I think a partial solution would be to have each case evaluated by more than just one person, and perhaps even apply the expression that justice is blind more literally,if the judge cannot see the person on trial, this removes biased choices based on appearance or behavior.

@edwardoliveira1748

Жыл бұрын

Voices tho.

@Cman04092

Жыл бұрын

The problem is, the courts are already overwhelmed doing 1 evaluation per person. I agree it would be better but would also have a cost in backing up the systems even further.

@hani286

Жыл бұрын

I think character should play an important role deciding the sentence. Only the judge has to smart enough and unbiased enough to see through the surface.

@resiknoiro7506

Жыл бұрын

@@hani286 This is not true. Absolutely nobody is completely unbiased, consciously or unconsciously. Not even the best judges.

@RGC_animation

Жыл бұрын

There are so many cases that it would not be efficient to have many judges judge a single case.

"We've just incentivized everyone to go steal Elon Musk's car because your punishment would only be the 2 minutes of labor it took him to buy it." Idk Kevin, that sounds pretty fair to me

@Susul-lj2wm

Жыл бұрын

exactly my thoughts. That system seems great

@matthewjensen8681

Жыл бұрын

Gotta say, I love that idea

@iagas9

Жыл бұрын

Yeah that seems fine!

@Ethan7s

Жыл бұрын

And that's why we live in a trash society.

@Cman04092

Жыл бұрын

@@Ethan7s learn what a joke is bro. I doubt most people, well normal people anyways, actually beleive this.

Court: Delivers harsher punishments after some team loses The Team That lost the match a day before: --_--

@Blox117

Жыл бұрын

MURICA!! FREEDUMB!!!

@angieemm

Жыл бұрын

@@Blox117 They WERE talking about LSU fans, so...yeah.

@Blox117

Жыл бұрын

@@angieemm has nothing to do with southern people or political sides, the whole country is a joke

@videogamebomer

Жыл бұрын

@@Blox117 nah just the south.

@lemurwrench6344

Жыл бұрын

@@Blox117 No more a joke than other countries. America is just scrutinized more so we know more about it's flaws, both real & imagined.

You should talk about how important it is that the law have to be easy to understand for EVERYBODY, which is way too often not the case. Trying to understand the law without a lawyer could put you in deep trouble... but should NOT be like that...

@mscbijles1256

Жыл бұрын

So true. As with everything, the devil is in the details and a law should never be so ‘simple’ that it has major unintended consequences. But lawmakers should still strive for simplicity, absolutely.

@Robbedem

Жыл бұрын

Very true. If a case is so complicated that it has to go all the way to the supreme court to decide if someone is guilty or not, can you even give a meaningfull sentence? How could the defendant have known he did something wrong when it takes all those judges to determine that?

@CristiNeagu

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but there's a flipside. Take the UK. In the UK very few people read the law. When you do want to read the law, most places will direct you to easy to understand summaries for the law. On the one hand it's good, cause the law is accessible. On the other, you still don't know the law. This is part of the reason why the police in the UK can bully whoever they want - people just don't know their rights. This is also why drivers in the UK are clueless about the laws - they read the Highway Code and that's written for even the most thick. When I took my driver's licence, I had to read the entire legislation and know it. Yes, it was hard, but that was the actual text of the law. Everyone, from the drivers around me to the judges in the courtroom operated according to that document. So yes. Simplify the law. But don't make it too simple cause you'll run into different problems.

@petitio_principii

Жыл бұрын

There is some kind of "movement" defending the "translation" of law to "plain English" (also exists in countries adopting other languages), and general adoption of more plain-English language by people working on the field.

@petitio_principii

Жыл бұрын

@@CristiNeagu That's not really much a problem of simplification but of actual deterioration of what's conveyed, though. And in the case of coppers being bullies, I'd think it's not even so simple, if they'd be somewhat dissuaded by someone expressing a fuller knowledge of their rights it probably wouldn't be that the reason that dissuades them, but that they'd see that as correlated with the person being rich or at least having rich friends that can cause them more trouble than some poor person who just happen to have a know the law in more depth than the average bloke.

I like this new serious Kevin. The topics he's talked about have been both fascinating and thought-provoking. Keep up the good work, Kevin!

@eaterdrinker000

Жыл бұрын

Vee Sauce Tonight

I'm shocked about how much leeway judges get in American law. Even with the mandatory algorythm, the maximum minimum sentence is SIX YEARS! In Brazil, we have an algorythm called the "triphasic method", which is pretty complicated, but forces judges to explain every single relevant aspect of the crime according to the law.

@howtoappearincompletely9739

Жыл бұрын

Could you link to something where I can read more about this, please? I looked up "triphasic method" on Wikipedia and that was no help. 😕

@Ashebrethafe

Жыл бұрын

I think you misread the chart -- the bottom part requires life sentences, including for first offenses if they're severe enough. (If you're actually talking about the maximum sentence for the smallest offenses, the 6 there is six _months,_ not six years.)

@aftokratory

Жыл бұрын

Yeah what the other guy pointed out those numbers are months not years

@jhonklan3794

11 ай бұрын

The brazillian system is 10 times worse. You need leniency because not every case is the same.

@jhonklan3794

11 ай бұрын

Brazil literally has one of the highest violent crime rates. Not a good example.

What I love about this story is that humans biased the system to the point they felt needed to invent an algorithm that was more fair (even with some glitches), but where so bad at using it that they start to add biases to their own judgement on how to fill the algorithm and therefore, conclude that the problem was the algorithm... It's quite close to "The Algorithm" of KZread, a lot of folks says that it is bad and biased without realizing that this is just mimicking a human behavior based on humain behavior. We are just good at blaming the result of our own failures and put it on someone or something else. We're not really good at taking responsibilities overall, maybe this is the problem... not us.

@willguggn2

Жыл бұрын

The problem with social media algorithms are the feedback loops they create. Them optimizing for length of stay also feeds into them exploiting the way humans as social beings tend to focus on outrage etc.

@kavinunethsarakoswattage3516

Жыл бұрын

@@willguggn2 Well, then the algorthm is successful. It perfrctly satisfies its purpose. People of the Social media platform needs users to use it for more time. To make people use it for more time, it has to serve posts with greater interest. People have greater interest in things they care about, comfirmation of their ideas and, ofcourse, violence. So the algorithm serves them exactly that. So at the end, it really isn't a problem of the Algorithm being inappropriate, its the end goal and psychology of people not being the best combination to exist. At the end, just another human error.

@melody3741

Жыл бұрын

Bruh we CANNOT HAVE AN ALGORITHM THAT MIMICS US! THATS THE PROBLEM!!

@purdysanchez

Жыл бұрын

Without having access to the source code we cannot say anything about KZread's algorithms other than their output. Maybe they're base on human behavior. Maybe they have a lot of administration to promote certain topics to certain groups.

The math for stealing Musk's car is pretty funny, but honestly doesn't seem that unfair. From Musk's perspective, he's probably losing more than two minutes to replace the stolen car. But that can be factored in. At that point if you were in need, it would probably be easier to tell the person beforehand that you need their item and come up with an arrangement rather than treating it as a crime and going through the courts.

@micahrice5338

Жыл бұрын

Your logic is undeniable…

@NickCombs

Жыл бұрын

@Hash Frowns or he could offer really cheap rentals and probably come off better in the long run

I got eight years for possession of Marijuana in South Dakota, 2006. Many of the years since have been spent pondering exactly the questions you raise here. Thanks.

@RobKohr

Жыл бұрын

Sorry to hear that Kris :(

@DimSimSam

Жыл бұрын

What was done to you was a severe injustice. I’m Australian and got a cannabis possession change of 14g (half ounce) and got a 10 min formal lecture from a police officer and a recorded written warning. If I get 3 written warnings I will have to before a magistrate (judge) and may face a serious fine and unlikely 3 months jail. I think that is fair as weed is illegal.

@DarthBane-zf8wv

Жыл бұрын

Don’t do drugs

@DimSimSam

Жыл бұрын

@@DarthBane-zf8wv Get bent

My law school professor told my class - in sentencing, judges use their "feelings".

I love when I end up with more questions than I had at the beginning of the presentation ... Thank your for my curiosity's growth

Some people get solitary confinement for trespassing, others get paid $500K for paintings.

This is so incredibly simple, the issue is that you're trying to PUNISH people not fix the conditions that cause crime, rehabilitative justice over punitive 'justice'. It's just impossible to "properly punish" someone so we shouldn't even try, the goal is to fix the problem not put people in a dangerous brick walled and iron barred "time out" that's just rediculous

@NeroDefogger

Жыл бұрын

I agree a lot, sadly society doesn't like the solution I suggest to fix it

@jacoblack6498

Жыл бұрын

It's not all about "punishment" though... like the judge that wrote the book in this vid about 'unfair sentencing' wrote about the different purposes for incarceration, "Incapacitation" being one of them & probably the most important of all! imo...

@jacoblack6498

Жыл бұрын

​@@NeroDefogger What solution are you referring to?

@jacoblack6498

Жыл бұрын

"Deterrence" is also a very useful & important purpose of incarceration penalties, maybe even number one over "Incapacitation"🤔 Both kind of go together in the way that, if One CANNOT be deterred from committing said crime, they CAN be incapacitated from repeating it...

@NeroDefogger

Жыл бұрын

@@jacoblack6498 I would have problems if I say it, because it's immoral and wrong for most people

4:50 gotta be honest, this sounds like a perfect solution to me

I'm shocked how the main goal of the system was punishment. Sure it grants victims some sense of revenge, but amongst the all possible motivations at 1:48 it's the only one not actively aimed at actually making matters better.

@PattyManatty

Жыл бұрын

There's a common one that he's missed in the list as well, which is deterrence. Sometimes sentences are for setting precedent that may make future offenders think twice

@wittyusername9544

Жыл бұрын

Punishment = deterrence. You see that your brother got his wrist slapped for touching the cookie jar when told not to therefore you decide not to and it reduces likelihoods of not only your brother doing act again but also you.

@pedrogarcia8706

Жыл бұрын

@@PattyManatty except punishment as deterrance doesn't actually work.

@wittyusername9544

Жыл бұрын

@@pedrogarcia8706 Stop the false conjecture. It’s been proven to work. When cops are in the area, people are less likely to speed because they know they will be caught and….. punished.

@darbyl3872

Жыл бұрын

@@PattyManatty I was going to say that he missed deterrence, too. I also think it may be the least important, most of the time. I think the sentence is seldom scrutinized by would-be criminals. However, a maximum penalty that everyone knows, is still an important part of fighting crime.

The questions on my mind are along the lines of, 'have we tried all rehabilitation strategies' and 'have we really tried any rehabilitation strategies'.

@brianbrandt25

5 ай бұрын

rehabilitation is a joke, a myth.

The sentencing algorithm sounded great. The LSD story doesn't highlight a fundamental problem with it at all, it's simply an example of poorly tuned parameters. If that is the best criticism of the system itself, I want it implemented immediately.

@LowestofheDead

Жыл бұрын

A logical system doesn't work if you can put illogical things into it. That's the point of his example.

Those questions at the end were very good. As I was younger, during my teenage years, I always thought that we should value punishment over rehabilitation. As I grew older that changed. I now think there has to be a balance. Punishment So the victim has some sort of redemption or satisfaction, but it is also about rehabilitation. Criminals lives also have value and they have families and should have the chance to have a free future together with their loved ones. I know there are criminals which seriously are a threat to the whole society without any chance of rehabilitation due to there psyche. It is hard to distinguish and i am all for it to put those away forever... but i always fear, if i had to choose, would i set someone bad free or sentence someone with chance for rehabilitation for live in prison?... Glad i dont have to make such choices.

@angieemm

Жыл бұрын

People who want a better life for themselves don't need the justice system to rehabilitate them on their behalf. It's things called "making better choices" and "not being a criminal." If they can't do that on their own, they deserve what they get in prison. You don't have to have special skills or special training to not be an a-hole.

@RockiesSweden

Жыл бұрын

@@angieemm I've definitely met some people that could probably use some special training to not be an a-hole

@Blox117

Жыл бұрын

more importantly, punishing someone who is innocent. one need look no further than the modern feminist agenda to see countless instances of "accusations" that turned out to not be true.

@explosiverift2037

Жыл бұрын

@@angieemm go outside, please.

@explosiverift2037

Жыл бұрын

punishment does not help society, nor countries, nor the victim. the victims feel at best nothing after punishment is dealt, or at worst sadistic satisfaction.

I am a prison officer. This video was well done.👍 It exposes the viewer to some of the injustices of the justice system.

@rhael42

Жыл бұрын

there is no justice in the "justice system"

@johnd1655

Жыл бұрын

oink

@101jir

Жыл бұрын

Justice is hard and complicated, but strong emotions get people to think it is simple.

@rogerwilco2

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure the US has a justice system, probably only a legal system.

@101jir

Жыл бұрын

@@rogerwilco2 So what does a "justice" system look like to you?

The best part of this video is the ending where you ask all of those questions. They were actually really thought provoking and I bet most of us haven't considered a lot of these concepts while thinking about justice and punishment.

Only 2 minutes of labor as punishment for stealing a vehicle from one of the richest people alive sounds extremely fair and based, actually

@allyme223

Жыл бұрын

For real, he lost me on that point. I still think that way of calculating punishment makes perfect sense lol

@allyme223

Жыл бұрын

If anything, it creates an incentive not to hoard hundreds of billions of dollars, or at least to protect your own stuff if you do, because now you have a target on your back

@allyme223

Жыл бұрын

If anything, it creates an incentive not to hoard hundreds of billions of dollars, or at least to protect your own stuff if you do, because now you have a target on your back

@orppranator5230

Жыл бұрын

Commie.

@TY-oy9bp

Жыл бұрын

@@orppranator5230 yes

When does real Kevin come back? The joke was funny at first but I feel like it has been so long that people won’t get the joke of why a sapient balloon is teaching us statistics..

@SophieMerau

Жыл бұрын

I can’t tell if this is supposed to be a compliment or joke towards Kevin. XD

As they say in Chin Village, "That's why we call it justice. Because it's 'just us'!"

Instead of dropping mandatory guidelines they should work on improving them. Put increasingly more factors into it. For example, it had: 1) In possession of a firearm +2 2) Discharging firearm +1 You could change #2 to include: Discharging firearm +1 a) towards a person or persons +1 i) towards upper body +1 ii) towards legs +0 b) away from persons +0 And so on. Any injustice in sentencing should be addressed by editing the sentencing guidelines, grandfather it back. People can then apply for a change in sentence based on guidelines changing. Also, instead of: Doing xxxxxx: +4 It could be: Doing xxxxxx: +1 a) with ill intent +3 b) with gross indifference +2 c) with indifference+1 d) with good intent +0 e) with just intent -1 Over time, turn the guidelines into a behemoth of every conceivable consideration.

@b-chroniumproductions3177

Жыл бұрын

There's no possible way you can predict every conceivable consideration.

@legendgames128

Жыл бұрын

@@b-chroniumproductions3177 Yeah, that's called exponential growth.

@danielenglish2469

Жыл бұрын

@@b-chroniumproductions3177 how do you come to that conclusion? Are you proposing that the possible things a judge should consider are infinite?

I refuse to give up my stance of rehabilitation above all. Felons should be able to vote, prisoners should not legally be slaves. Criminals are not less than human, but having a system that treats them as such helps reinforce the need to be criminal.

@squorsh

Жыл бұрын

Only after they're released from prison right? I'd agree, because if you're released it's supposed to be because you're ready to reintegrate into society.

@BinCaAlors

Жыл бұрын

How does that reinforce the "need" to be a criminal? Why would someone "need" to be a criminal?

@Aaron.Thomas

Жыл бұрын

@@squorsh Which is hilarious, because tf did prison change for them? Recidivism has been shown, over and over and over by things like scientific studies and facts, to not be related to punishment and prison time with any predictability, but with, big surprise, the same things that promote crime in the first place, like poverty traps, lack of resourceful social structures, lack of social services, lack of access to other basic resources like health care, fair housing, gainful employment, etc, etc, etc.

@Aaron.Thomas

Жыл бұрын

@@BinCaAlors Oh, you sweet, sheltered child. Maybe ask Robin Hood why he "needed" to be a criminal? Or George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and other famous law breakers? Or maybe just for a moment, try to imagine for yourself what kinds of awful situation you would need to be in to even begin considering violating a law, and then realize many people find themselves in such straights daily, and they still resist.

@Ironica82

Жыл бұрын

We are all slaves to the government, darling, being held at gunpoint until we pay them off each year and then in turn they are not even required to.protect us at all.

Stellar video, Kevin, one of your best in a while. Powerfully written text.

@eaterdrinker000

Жыл бұрын

Vee Sauce Tonight

the argument "this system had strange, sometimes absurd effects" can only work against THIS SPECIFIC system, not against using SOME such system.

We cant even get social media bans correct. RIP

Absolutely astounding video! Goes to show that we, in a functioning democracy, elect our representatives for other wishes and problems and forget about the intrinsic necessities of a self-governing society. In an infrastructure connotation, we never know about the sewer until they blow up or flood! The same goes for crime punishment! People want to feel safe and feel that they have been justified in court, beyond that they won't pressure representatives to enact a logical framework that not only makes sense, in regards to their moral and ethics of their time, but is in itself "future proofed" It is an extraordinarily complex topic mind you. We are talking about societal perception, crime and punishment, judiciary dogmas and norms. None of those are trivial subjects.

@eaterdrinker000

Жыл бұрын

Vee Sauce Tonight

I'm currently reading Noise by Kahneman, Sibony, Sunstein which talks a lot about cases like these and the whole Frankel thing. Funny that this video pops up now. It's really interesting how much noise contributes to all decisions, and it's not just bias.

To answer the questions at the end: There isn't one. Yet we still must strive for Justice (and morality). Justice is a goal that cannot be achieved once and for all but must be continually sought. What we can do is recognize where our past efforts have fallen short and try again. This seeking requires engagement with history and complex moral problems and participation in our communities. What leads to injustice, always (though other things lead there as well), is lack of engagement and participation whether because we think the ultimate answer has already been provided by an algorithm or a sacred text or because we have become cynical and apathetic.

@thugpug4392

Жыл бұрын

KZread gave me the option to rate your comment so I said it was "terrible" and "uninteresting". Get rekt.

that epic speech at the end with epic music playing was something else

I love the switch of this channel. From math to crime math. It is awesome

@eaterdrinker000

Жыл бұрын

Vee Sauce Tonight

Thank you really so much. This series on crime related topics has enlightened me a lot.

The system should purely focus on the preventory/rehabilitation aspect instead of this sadistic idea of justice. I find it sick that the suffering of someone else - deserved or not - would make one feel better. It is such a cruel and immature idea.

@Susikohmelo

Жыл бұрын

(Though I'm not saying anything completely insane like removing punishments! The mere existence of a punishment does prevent some crimes, I'm only saying that when considering a punishment this wicked idea of "getting what they deserve" should play no part in the decision. Seriously, how is this any better than the idea of eye for an eye?)

@angieemm

Жыл бұрын

@@Susikohmelo I may be wrong, but I'm going to suggest that you've never been the victim of a violent crime, or one involving intimate assault. If I told you some of the things that have happened to me, you might have a different view on why I absolutely want those men to suffer.

@Ironica82

Жыл бұрын

Do you know the original meaning of an eye for an eye?

@DarthBane-zf8wv

Жыл бұрын

Not mutually exclusive goals…

Outstanding video highlighting the limits of mathematics, the imperfection of legal systems, & the impossibility of a just system while reinforcing the idea we have to continue to aim for a just system.

In a way my ideal would be every major crime gets you sent to a rehabilitation center for a term of "Until you're cleared to leave", but that runs into the same problem that you have people in those centers determining if you're rehabilitated or not. Many of the same biases would be a problem. Still, I find the idea of punishment to be draconian. I very much wish we'd all switch to a system of restitution and rehabilitation.

@Cman04092

Жыл бұрын

Yes, i agree we should try for rehabilitation, BUT some people just cant or don't want to be rehabilitated, so you have to have a way to deal with that.

@johnyliltoe

Жыл бұрын

@@Cman04092 I mean, maybe this is where I am a little cruel, but that'd be the other side of "until you're cleared to leave". That could be a life sentence if someone is unable or unwilling to change. I'm pretty much fine with that. Though I also don't believe locking someone up for non-violent crimes is really sensible. I find it reasonable to say "if you are considered a high risk of attacking someone we should keep you away from the public."

@eagleleft

Жыл бұрын

@@Cman04092 look at Netherland

@eagleleft

Жыл бұрын

Netherlands has some sort of this system and it works

@userequaltoNull

Жыл бұрын

I agree in part, but punishment is very much done for the benefit of the victims. Knowing that your child's molester is rotting in prison is often extremely healing for the family.

For the questions at the end, I don't have many answers: Of course the defendant hurt the victim in the case of taking a life, but if the point of life is to become stronger because of/in spite of it, we cannot act like gigantic sentences designed to effectively take away another's life is anything more than hollow retribution. To what end does one person who does not present a hazard anymore (to the extent psychologists can determine) being incarcerated serve the public interest? If laws are specifically about keeping us safe, a person without. I would argue the difference between first-, second-, and tenth-time offender is the likelihood of re-offense. It is impossible to know whether someone will reoffend again, but knowing that certain things are pattern forming tells us we need to be more thorough before retrying reintegration with society. Giving up... well there is no good way to answer this, because the choices are yes (meaning rehabilitation is finite) and no (meaning that rehabilitation is infinite) to which I personally don't know. I would argue that a criminal isn't responsible to future generations that don't exist yet. While restitution may exist for the next generation, the ripple effects past that point are too varied and complex to feasibly trace it with modern technology. In 2 generations past your own, assuming each generation has 2 children, that would mean there are 4 grandchildren of 1 victim you must appease. Past that are 8, and at 16 we get to about a century past the time the crime is committed. That would imply the person is responsible for what happens to 29 people within a century of committing 1 crime. What would I say is reasonable? The criminal is beholden to 2 primary groups: directly related descendents (children) and dependents to the victim. For the "Eye for an eye" thing, refer back to the point about hollow retribution. I wouldn't say there are crimes we should just "Accept" rather if it is an action we should all accept it shouldn't be a crime at all. The phrasing of the next question doesn't play into what I am saying here, because if the punishment and restitution fit the crime, they wouldn't need to be punished at all. "Victimless Crimes" needs to be disambiguated, because "Driving over the speed limit" is a victimless crime until it hits someone. There is a point to enforcing safety standards against not yet crisis causing hazards. If a crime is victimless, it should be called into question if the safety standard is at fault or the perpetrator. I don't have an answer for the Injustice/Perfect Justice question. I could see an argument for rehabilitation being the primary leader of it, since the point of a society is to benefit all who partake in it and if the purpose is only punishment that does not benefit the targeted group, but actions have to be taken for a breach in a social contract to realign all breaking parties.

@petelee2477

Жыл бұрын

Just kill them and move on like we do with any other dangerous creature. I don't see what the dilemma is? We have no problems killing harmless unborn babies but hesitate to dispose of a dangerous criminal.

@Bolpat

Жыл бұрын

Driving over the speed limit is not victimless. Any reasonable definition judges the action in the abstract, not what happened in a specific instance. An action in question is victimless, if by its nature, it is unable to victimize someone (not counting the actors). Speeding increases the time to halt the car and the amount of road it passes for a halt. It risks running over someone who'd otherwise live. A better example is criminalizing homosexual Intercourse of consenting adults, obviously. A really nice one is: Not paying taxes.

Also can we not ignore how easy it would be to use a chart but NOT base drug weight on carrier medium? I knew about someone who panicked and put meth in his soda then confessed to it and they treated the whole 10 ounces that were left as his sentence

I know many people have an issue with the justice system, but your video helps to show how hard it is to get a justice system right. We should always be striving to improve the system, but we should also acknowledge it could be a lot worse.

Another stimulating video 💜 I also like the subtle Pee Wee movie call-out xD

This is something that has always bothered me, ¿which crimes should make you deserving of jail, for how long?, ¿when is it worth it to ruin someone’s future with jail time?. Many crimes go unpunished or unreported because most of the time it’s not a big enough offense for it to be worth anyone’s time, if we followed law perfectly the system would seem so unfair, ¿does this mean it’s flawed?

@eagleleft

Жыл бұрын

Also see how the crime the wealthy commit like wage theft aren't punished with jail time but people get put in jail for stealing food.

@informationnotavailable6433

Жыл бұрын

Is English your first language?

@Niviso

Жыл бұрын

@@informationnotavailable6433 no but i think I do pretty well

@informationnotavailable6433

Жыл бұрын

@@Niviso You do. Everything in that comment was well written with excellent grammar. However some small things are that you used commas (,) instead of periods (.) at the end of your sentences. Also, you only need question marks (?) at the end if sentences, like I had in my first comment. I’m not trying to insult you, you wrote better than most native English speakers, those are just some small things in the English language you might not have known.

@Niviso

Жыл бұрын

@@informationnotavailable6433 Oh yeah you are totally right. I completely forgot about the way question marks work in other languages, in Spanish we always have to use both so I’m used to that. Thanks for the help.

These videos makes our days better

Not leaving it up to 1 person, and giving them more time to dwell on it might make a difference

As an ex criminal lawyer, thanks for this nice offering! I recommend you read Beccaria's "Offence and Penalties" its a short read and most of current sentencing is based on it.

Morality is a concept and it changes on the variables. The weights of the variables depends on the probablity of the event. Unfortunately the conditions of the probability to be true are not well understood or the all variables are not accounted for. Justice cannot be truly just because it depends the bias of the people and their variables which they have encountered during their lifetime and the present.

@Goldy01

Жыл бұрын

..which is why you get a sentence in court, not justice.

I don't think severe wealth disparity necessarily breaks math based punishment, if anything the punishment algorithm starts us on the road to fixing wealth disparity.

@TheMvlproductionsinc

Жыл бұрын

i was like sounds like a good system "wrong it would incentivice stealing elon m-" yes... yes exactly what i was thinking

@WriteUnread

Жыл бұрын

agreed, a justice system that accurately reflects the amount of harm done to the victim is not the problem -- if two minutes of the victims time is equivalent to YEARS of someone else's, THAT is the problem

Top video. As always. I remember I initially did not like Kevin or his delivery style, I bounced off most initial videos. But three years now, all his videos are insta-watch. One of my favorite YTbers.

Thanks Kevin for giving a new problem to ponder on!

I was like "right, this doesn't sound fair..." up until you mentioned how someone would serve 2 minutes for stealing Elon Musk's car and now it does sound fair...

@123four...

Жыл бұрын

yeah, sounds like a plus to me

The easiest solution would just be to cap the amount of years someone can serve for any given crime. you cut off all of the most agregious outliers and you keep the judges discretion intact. From there more depth can be added as needed such as ways to reduce this maximum and by how much. its not perfect but it seems the best way to do it.

@SolomonUcko

Жыл бұрын

Maybe in general you shouldn't have to serve longer than you've lived so far? Would be difficult for people without sufficient available documentation though

@SomeGuy1117

Жыл бұрын

@@SolomonUcko That seems like an overcomplication. Plus it still allows for excessive punishment for petty offenses. An 18 year old serving 18 years for car jacking seems quite excessive. Anyone serving 18 years for that seems excessive. Its a serious crime, but not 18 years serious.

Great topic, Vee. Knowing math, and when to use it, is important for all areas of society, especially law.

Man, that final list of questions was beautiful.

I still wonder is he a mathematician or a lawyer

@marcosettembre

Жыл бұрын

He's both

@vincentxu8217

Жыл бұрын

He's a philosopher by the end of the video

@pierfrancescopeperoni

Жыл бұрын

He is a KZreadr.

@eaterdrinker000

Жыл бұрын

Lately, he's been 'Murican John Oliver.

A lot of STEM-lords out there think that there’s an objective, scientific answer to what are actually philosophical questions. This video will be good for them!

@totalolage

Жыл бұрын

If there isn't an objective, scientific answer, then your question is ill defined. Which it is. You won't get an objective, scientific definition for "justice".

@jhonklan3794

11 ай бұрын

its not a philispohical question tho????

You forgot to mention "Deterrence" as a reason for sentencing. The theory being that people will not commit a crime if the sentence id too harsh. Reality is that people first weigh their perception of being caught / exposed. Once fear of being caught has been weighed then severity of punishment is weighed according to the person's criminal history (career vs opportunistic). My _personal_ belief is that halfway houses should be used as the norm because 1) The criminal still has most liberties removed, 2) The criminal has the threat of higher security incarceration hanging over their head, 3) The criminal earns a salary, making them pay rent to offset the cost of their incarceration, 4) The opportunity to support the family remains possible for convicts who choose to now follow the rules.

Alright kimu Sabi.....just found your channel today, watched several of your videos an hands down this is my favorite I LOVE THE STRAIGHT FACTS YOU BRING TO THE TABLE! An your extraordinary effort to not be biased. I personally appreciate the effort that you put forth in creating this video thank you!

4:53 I mean, that's the dragon system : if you're rich enough to have a disgustigly big hoard, you should be treated as a dragon, in that if someone steals from you, it's on you, not them

An algorithm makes a prediction of years, if the judge arrives to a sentence with a deviation of +30% it has to be reviewed by a random different judge.

i like the uploads, feels like back when i hadnt watched the whole backlog when there are relatively frequent new videos

I've just came back from school where we were discussing about how the legal system is biased and mostly unfair and you just uploaded this video!

i mean the musk theft seems fair to me.

Anyone who spends their time on models and algorithms, understands how they are all flawed. There, unfortunately, is no perfect system

I came into this video mistaking the "math" in the title for "meth" yet came out equally satisfied

Fun fact, in the countries where the emphasis is on rehabilitation, the rate of second offence tends to be inversely proportional to degree of emphasis put in rehabilitation. In the USA, where the system is almost totally punishment based, the recidivism rate is one of the highest in the world.

That’s how homework was supposed to be, a punishment, now our childhood was work filled rather than enjoyed to the fullest.

All questions are hard, except one: Should we have victimless crimes? Absolutely not. Before you argue, victimless does not mean “no victim in action (by coincidence)” but “the action in question can fundamentally, by its nature, not victimize anyone, possibly with the exception of the actor.”

@biggiecheez6879

Жыл бұрын

Out of curiosity what do you define as a victimless crime?

@Bolpat

Жыл бұрын

@@biggiecheez6879 Some examples are: Homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, incest between consenting adults, prostitution, apostasy, Britain had attempted “self-deletion” punished in the 19th century, mere drug possession (without intent of selling), firearm possession.

@biggiecheez6879

Жыл бұрын

@@Bolpat the only one of that i disagree with is firearm possession, because guns should be regulated and tracked

@Bolpat

Жыл бұрын

​@@biggiecheez6879 Technically speaking, it’s similar to car possession versus driving. Driving a car requires a license, owning one does not. There are for sure car collectors without a license. Failing to properly register a gun is different to possession; not the possession would be the criminal act, but the circumvention of registering. Possession encompasses trading (a car dealer need not have a valid license either) and collecting. Of course, cars and guns are very dissimilar, but there’s a lot of similarities. In the abstract, the political left seems to agree that guns are to be banned and the political right agree that guns are to be over-the-counter. People may fall on a spectrum here, you do and I do, too. In my opinion, getting a license for gun carrying should be about the same as getting a driver’s license. Even the most radical elements of the right won’t fight for the Second Amendment rights of prison inmates. There’s a whole other argument about if not complying with an requirement like registering something or paying taxes is a victimless crime. I have no satisfactory answer to this, yet. If you think you have, I’ll gladly listen.

@biggiecheez6879

Жыл бұрын

@@Bolpat the victim of not paying taxes is everybody, because they are the ones funding the services you use. I would also say making the act of avoiding registering a gun should be a crime if only because either criminals use it and we know who owns it, or they don't, and even if we can't convict them of any other crimes, we can get them on gun charges. An ordinary citizen shouldn't have a problem with gun registration as it's just a public service

Kevin : what's the algorithm for that? Me : That doesn't exist, so I shall invent that.

As a freelancer I had to create one of these spreadsheets for a state attorney, and I had to do one for the costs of jailing based upon the sentence (?). The most compact and comprehensive thing we came up with was a 20 page excel worksheet that produces 5 possible options. Aside from the fixed costs of materials and resources, so much of it was arbitrary and subject to change on a daily basis. Thankfully the scope was for only one state.

In my opinion, punitive reasoning for justice is bad. The goal of justice should be the best outcome, not nevenge!

@MEIJIN44

Жыл бұрын

If you make a system without revenge in one type or another you will have nothing but vigilante justice. Any justice system that doesn't satisfy the victim and/or those who are close to them won't last long.

@resiknoiro7506

Жыл бұрын

@@MEIJIN44 yes, it won't last long. Because humans often are over emotional and want revenge (even though revenge doesn't make sense). A justice system without any revenge will probably never be achieved, even though it would be the best.

4:52 I don't see a problem here

@cardiaccoder9622

Жыл бұрын

Petty theft is rampant, also theft against the wealthy becomes rampant. Things would fall apart

Kevin going on a philosophical/moral crisis about crimes on the end was great.

Imagine getting several eternities for dropping your weed in a lake withe that drug punishment system.

I work in a nonprofit dealing w sexual misconduct and rehabilitation above all applies for most (but not all) cases. For many it's a "this many years suspension from this space + get therapy and get cleared by a professional, then you're getting re-integrated" while also being anti isolation (only anti platforming the person until they've shown growth). I think isolating a human being from their community and surrounding them w even more dysfunctional people in a prison is a recipe for disaster. I actually think modern cancel culture is a reflection of the industrial prison complex of isolation. But I also think there are simply crimes and people that aren't able to he rehabilitated. But even those people deserve support more than isolation, which is why the death sentence will never make sense to me. The death sentence doesn't make sense from any side in general. If you think people should be punished hard then it makes no sense either because death isn't a punishment, it's setting someone free from a life spent in prison that someone that wants criminals to suffer would want them to spend thinking about what they did for the rest of their life. Realistically I think there would be faults in the rehabilitation system as well (let's not start about how retraumatizing mental health hospitals are either), but I think steering more in this direction makes plenty more sense. Restorative justice makes sense for many many crimes. Not all, but I'd say most, as someone seeing this on a greater psychological and sociological scale.

As a "non American" I find so much of the US criminal "justice" system quaint in a horrifying way. It would be cool to get Kevin's perspectives on more international criminal justice

@sphygo

Жыл бұрын

As an American, I would also love an in-depth analysis of other criminal justice systems

@amit2.o761

Жыл бұрын

yeah strongly agree

@Ironica82

Жыл бұрын

Like streamlining the death penalty for violent murderers and child molesters?

@youerny

Жыл бұрын

@@sphygo as a “non American”, I am usually very happy … to be not. But thanks for your concern

@jhonklan3794

11 ай бұрын

Bruh, your justice system is probably worse. Most of this is even worse in other countries.

I have always thought that the punishment should be determined by the jury. If a jury can be trusted to determine somebodies guilt, shouldn’t they be able to also determine HOW guilty they are, and how much to punish them? Provide them with information on sentencing guidelines, and perhaps give them the judge’s recommendation for the sentence, and let them settle it.

The last remaining and best vsauce

Balancing Justice and Mercy is about impossible without things that humans just can't do lol. The best way to deliver Justice and Mercy is for someone else to take punishment for the crime willingly so that the Offender can be free, and the Victim can be repaid, but we kinda can't do that. One idea would be that every criminal gets the same punishment of rehabilitation until they are tested to be safe for society. But even then, we will struggle. Man, it is hard for justice to work

@resiknoiro7506

Жыл бұрын

Justice is hard in practice. But i think in theory, it's really simple: Do the thing with the best outcome.

"Should we even have victimless crime?" No. This is one of the most messed up things about laws around the world, people being punished for actions that hurt nobody.

@xiggywiggs

Жыл бұрын

I think whether or not we should have victimless crimes probably depends on how "victimless" is defined.

@williaml840

Жыл бұрын

Most "victimless" crimes are crimes because they constitute actions with a high possibility of creating victims - like drunk driving - just because you didn't hit someone this time doesn't let you off the hook. If you're talking about stuff like "possession of drugs for personal use" - then sure that probably shouldn't be a crime.

@fetchstixRHD

Жыл бұрын

@@williaml840: Agreed, I do think OP was trying to imply "no possibility of creating a victim" in their statement. Mind you, I still think that's a little bit hard to define fully, rather than by going through example scenarios and arguing each!

Man, that was heavy hitting. I felt the final two minutes in my bones.

@eaterdrinker000

Жыл бұрын

Vee Sauce Tonight

“What’s the algorithm for morality?” Ah yes, the moralgorithm.

"You would only have to serve 2 minutes for stealing Elon Musk's car." I have no issue with this.

Lol, the Xiao body pillow

You really need one judge to decide the verdict then categorize the points in the case such as: accusations, evidence, plea, congruent offenses and number of offenses… then a second judge blind to the case decides the punishment for those crimes.

bruh i came in here wanting to learn some math and ended up having an existential crisis

I think a combination of judge and objective formula. Like use that chart you shown and use that to find the maximum sentencing, but allow judges to lower the sentence. They cannot raise it above the algorithm. We arrest and sentence far too many people in this country. Taking the more linient option seems more just to me.

@legendgames128

Жыл бұрын

The order it should go (maybe), Chart, Main Judge, Random Judge, sentence obtained.

This is why I laugh at any person in law who says precident matters. If it mattered we wouldn't have crazy swings in the size of punishments.

Waiting for a long video for a long time.

Link to the datatable please? I would like to examine it in detail

In the same way we decide what is punished by law, we should also decide how it will be punished I think the guidelines idea was a pretty good solution, it was just too unpolished since it didn't have enough time to develop We should also have a voice on how long or severe some crimes are, to build some better and with time, more complete guidelines, controlling the absurd power judges have

I think that something that has the be thought about is the fact that the harm has already happened, punishment will not undo that, so what punishment can accomplish is limited to discouraging others from doing similar crimes, physically preventing the criminal from doing similar crimes, and creating a sense of just order, especially for the victim(s). The problem is that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's not as good at the first two as we'd like to believe and, while I've never had someone close to me be murdered so I cannot say with confidence how that changes things, it seems to me that any good feelings from things like punishing someone are tainted and fleeting. Meanwhile someone's effectively losing a large portion of their life, and likely others are losing large portions of their lives with that person, and in many cases that person's being made more likely to commit more crimes if they ever get out of prison. Then you get to the whole issue of private prisons inflating incarceration and using inmates as unpaid labor and the way that that connects with crimes designed to target minorities and all the other places of obvious abuse.

Criminal: Do this math problem My schools math club: 🗿

Vsauce2 is slowly turning into Lawsauce2

This is why my big advocate for jury sentencing, I think the role of the judge should be to keep the process running smooth but it should be the jury after either finding someone guilty is the most capable body of deciding what to do after viewing the totality of the evidence of the crime and the likelihood the offender will reoffend.

@gritnix

Жыл бұрын

I'd respectfully disagree, but maybe halfway? I think maybe the judge sentences with a jury recommendation? Juries are made up of random people with absolutely zero qualification in judging anything like likelihood of reoffending. Non-expert, random juries in civil courts is how we end up with junk science being highlighted as "proof".

@ok_ghost4678

Жыл бұрын

That’s why places with humane prisons have lower crime rate as the prisons really do try to rehab the prisoners So I think the way we punish should also change too

@MrRowan13

Жыл бұрын

ridiculous more mob doesn't balance outcomes out

@explosiverift2037

Жыл бұрын

while good in theory, juries need extreme vetting to prevent arbitrary decision making.

@raulpetrascu2696

Жыл бұрын

You would trust the average crowd more than someone who was trained, knows the laws and worked in that field for decades? Against a persuasive or charismatic defendant/lawyer? Judges aren't perfect but how is the jury more capable, wouldn't there be even more variance etc when these people only sentence probably 1 case in their lives? Theres pros and cons, yet my doctor could be biased or affected by the football game on Monday but I trust him over a random group of people 9 times out of 10

interesting how noone thought to improve the algorithms rules, like just update how you calculate how drug dealers should be sentenced from drug amount by the actual amount of doses

@gritnix

Жыл бұрын

I thought the same. That didn't mean the algorithm itself was screwed up. It meant using the total weight of medium was a bad idea. Sounds like they threw out the baby with the bathwater.

@XJWill1

Жыл бұрын

That's no better. What would be better is not punishing people simply for possessing or selling or buying certain substances.

@Goldy01

Жыл бұрын

@@XJWill1 you think people that sell hard drugs to others shouldn't be punished? Yes officer, this comment right here.

@XJWill1

Жыл бұрын

@@Goldy01 Of course they should not be punished. How dare you commit a violent act upon two innocent people minding their own business. The person committing the violent act upon the innocent victim is the one who needs to be punished.

Long time fan and this is the best vsauce vid I’ve seen since I can remember

One of the best, deepest contents I've seen in the last year.