[dhosek]

I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.

[dragonwriter]

> If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so.

If a witness or person in custody of physical evidence can do so, you have a similar problem.

[nefitty]

I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of litigation gambling. Considering your comment, it definitely seems like a horrible idea, so I'm not a proponent. My surprise is due to the fact that the degeneracy of the internet knows no bounds.

[dhosek]

There are some bounds on gambling, like the fact that there are some people who know the outcome of the Oscars before they're revealed is why there's no betting on those awards (and other similar awards). I think the ability of individuals to decisively affect the outcome of litigation is similarly adverse to there being gambling.¹

⸻⸻⸻

1. This is one reason why match-fixing in boxing is such a big thing (and it's apparently a lot more common than most people think, especially at the lower levels).

[tata71]

Replace boxing with literally almost all pro sports.