Comments on: Trial by Lots

By: Ron Myers

Ron Myers — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:32:27 +0000

This method was also used to decide who got to auction off an art collection. See:

“Rock, Paper, Payoff: Child’s Play Wins Auction House an Art Sale

By CAROL VOGEL

Published: April 29, 2005

It may have been the most expensive game of rock, paper, scissors ever played.

Takashi Hashiyama, president of Maspro Denkoh Corporation, an electronics company based outside of Nagoya, Japan, could not decide whether Christie’s or Sotheby’s should sell the company’s art collection, which is worth more than $20 million, at next week’s auctions in New York.”

The rather lengthy url is noted below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/arts/design/29scis.html?ei=5088&emc=rss&en=0fe7e3a883877ba2&ex=1272427200&partner=rssnyt

By: arthur

arthur — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:41:16 +0000

For a judicial ruling order mandating a coin flip to decide which contender would receive a multi-million dollar prize, see Order, Oct. 19, 1998, LaPerriere v. Vesta Ins. Group, No. CV-98-AR-1407-S (N.D. Ala. 1998).

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:26:22 +0000

It occurs to me that legal lot casting in the Roman Republic (it was often used to divy up responsibilities between elected magistrates) was prone to chronic manipulation, which — of course — would undermine the fairness and predictability of the system.

Even under a system of random justice one needs an honest judge throwing the dice it would seem.

By: John Steele

John Steele — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:59:49 +0000

Neil Duxbury’s “Random Justice” and Barbara Goodwin’s “Justice by Lottery” deal with justice by lottery. IIRC, in the case recreated in the movie Amistad, the lower court was going to use a lottery to determine which slaves would be returned. Judge Prensell’s decision is an odd mix of justicy by lottery and trial by combat.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:55:09 +0000

I might have said that dice plain and simple could be accepting to all parties, theists and non-theists alike insofar as the former could still interpret the results as the inscrutable will of their deity, while the latter could asribe the outcome to Fortuna, luck, chance, what have you.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:40:55 +0000

But the notion of ‘the inscrutable will of the deity’ does not make sense to agnostics, atheists, humanists, Taoists, Confucians, Buddhists, etc.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:42 +0000

“…you didn’t happen to go to Yale, did you?”

Perish the thought! I went to a law school.

On the divinity of the dice, I am not so sure. If the outcomes can be ascribed to the inscrutable will of diety you might have a bit more support for the system.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:54:47 +0000

Nate,

Presuming you’ve yet to read it, Jon Elster’s Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989), treats such topics (i.e., Gordian Knots), in particular (and by way of illustration) with regard to child custody cases. It’s a delightful read.

However, I doubt the dice need be ‘sacred.’ Indeed, it’s perhaps better if we left divine will out of this and chalked it up to fate, chance or luck: all parties might be more accepting of the result!

[Incidentally, some time ago there was a post on this case at TalkLeft as well]

By: John Armstrong

John Armstrong — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:52:43 +0000

For example, in ancient Israel they seem to have resolved litigation from time to time by resort to a kind of holy set of dice, known as the Urim and Thummim, which would be cast to decide who would win a case.

Just checking: you didn't happen to go to Yale, did you? Lux et Veritas and all.