Jurors should provide a Proof of Stake.

Laws make sure society stays in place. While some may argue that it’s human nature to do the right thing, an equal amount would counter the claim. I am one if those that believe laws keep society in place.

However, there are some important weaknesses in the legal system.

Enforcement of laws is done properly as long as the police is not corrupt; corruption is a topic for a later time as today I want to focus in what happens within the courts. Once a case is brought to court, a judge and a jury make the decision that can greatly affect the accuser or defendant. Criminal law aside, most civil cases are also faced off in courtrooms.

While we accept that the modern system of courtroom judgements is proper, it’s important to step aside and realize that those making the decision in the courtroom have no real loss in case they make a wrong decision. Sure, the judge can have a weakened reputation from a poor judgement, but it would take a long series of poor judgements to reach that point.

On the other hand, all those who faced the sour end of the poor judgement pay the price.

The jury, meanwhile, faces no problems at all in case of a poor decision. Jurors have no stake and thus have every reason to think emotionally rather than logically when dealing with a case. They have the opportunity to exercise their biases (and even racism); the opportunity to negligibly make a decision that can greatly impact another person; the opportunity to be corrupted.

In a perfect situation, jurors must think logically and must exercise absolute bipartisanship. Reality is that there is no reason for them to be as such.

This is wrong. Broken. A tragic reality.

Jurors Should have Something at Stake

In order for jurors to properly handle a case, they must have a vested interest in the just outcome of the trial; they must have a reason to exert every effort to side with the true winner of a case.

A new protocol, JUR, is going to turn this into a reality.

JUR is an arbitration protocol that issues Smart Legal Agreements. These smart contracts are incorruptible blockchain records that can hold funds. Thus, JUR offers the optimal way to deal with transactions that require some form of agreement as they fund transfer will be handled by a trustless Smart Legal Agreement. Such a technology already exists, though. So what’s unique about Jur?

PoS for the Jury

What sets JUR aside is that it is pioneering a revolutionary concept of integrating a jury into its protocol. The jurors must stake funds. This sets a first ever precedent for jurors to think absolutely on the basis of logic, setting aside emotions and biases and then making a decision with absolute focus and proper intuition and reason. In case they don’t and are voting for the person that loses the case, the losing jurors lose their staked funds. This puts two incentives, first is that only the logically competent would pursue this opportunity, and the second is that their will be a reward for exerting the effort to vote for the right person.

JUR is obviously not going to change the entire jury system as it only affects cases that involve arbitration, but this is still a big step in turning the legal system more effective. JUR is not only making a major technological breakthrough, but potentially a social one too.

The movers and shakers in the legal system should have their eyes peered on whether a PoS for jurors leads to an improved justice system.

Jurors should provide a Proof of Stake. was originally published in Hacker Noon on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.