Let’s consider the idea behind a jury. It has been mathematically proven that a collaborative decision will far outweigh the success of a probabilistic inference made by any single individual. Endless scientists, mathematicians and authors have argued in support of this notion. For instance, Charles Conn and Robert McLean (2019) who published Bulletproof Problem Solving support the idea of an egalitarian work process, which involves a multitude of contrasting perspectives as opposed to one, using a corporate setting example of ‘obligation to dissent’ to ensure all points are made, no matter the hierarchy or position of the participants. This approach can mitigate the impact of our innate human biases which sociologists everywhere argue that no individual on earth lives without. They also go on to argue that no impactful change can be reached without sufficient influence, so whatever decisions we make, we best make sure we always have the authority to exercise it. To execute such Consistent and Assertive Authority, without room for Abuse of Authority, we may wish to design automated algorithms to help with logical coupling of facts and laws, complemented by a jury of say 500 individuals selected randomly from around the globe, with as many possible degrees of separation from the one(s) on trial.