Blockchain Revolution

Blockchain Judiciary
The blockchain can also transform our judiciary. Combining the concepts of
transparency, crowdsourcing, and online citizen participation—over a blockchain—
we can envision reintroducing concepts of ancient Athenian democracy into the
twenty-first century.
55
CrowdJury
56
looks to transform the justice system by putting
several judicial processes online, using both crowdsourcing and the blockchain,
including filing a charge or complaint, gathering and vetting of evidence, engaging
citizens in open trials online and as online jurors, and issuing a verdict. Think
transparent processes with crowdsourced discovery, crowdsourced analysis, and
crowdsourced decision making and presto—you get an accurate outcome in a much
shorter time frame and at vastly reduced cost.
The process
57
starts with the reporting online of a suspected civil or criminal
wrongdoing (e.g., a public official suspected of receiving bribes) and inviting
potential witnesses to provide evidence, and combining information from multiple
sources. The original complaint or claim, as well as all the evidence, would be
cryptographically stored via the blockchain to ensure that it remains on record and is
not tampered with.
Once it is filed, relatively small (nine to twelve people) groups of volunteers self-
selected based on required expertise would analyze the facts and determine whether
there is validity to go to trial. At trial, there would be two possible paths. First, the
named “wrongdoer” pleads guilty and proposes restoration (which may or may not be
accepted by a jury) or the complaint proceeds to online trial with a massive jury. Just
as in Athens, where any citizen over thirty could apply for jury for any given period
(but not for a specific case), individuals will apply for juries with final selection by a
randomization device, just as Athenian jurors were selected by a kleroterion in the
fourth century BC.
58
As a result, there is no bias in the distribution of jurors to
specific cases. The trial and all the evidence are broadcast online in an open-court-like
model. Anyone can “attend” and ask questions of the defendant, but only jurors vote
for the verdict via an online vote.

---

Let’s start with conflict adjudication in low-value disputes and resolving issues in
global communities across jurisdictional lines, for example social networks. The U.K.
Civil Justice Council recently looked at online models worldwide to recommend
online dispute resolution.
59
Most of the early models depend upon use of judges or
other expert adjudicators at some stages in the online process. Other processes in
place rely upon other online participants to call out and address inappropriate
behavior online such as defamatory feedback (e.g., eBay’s subsidiary in the
Netherlands Marktplaats’ Independent Feedback Review) or cheating at online games
(e.g., like Valve’s Overwatch, which allows qualified members of the community to
review reports of disruptive behavior and apply temporary bans, if appropriate.)
60
This is a far cry from mob justice. It’s the “wisdom of the crowd” applied to many
more judicial processes with beneficial results.