I agree with Will that consistency in refereeing is a good thing. It’s infuriating to see a home team get nonsense calls when you’re routing for the road team.

But consistency is just one goal that sports leagues are trying to maximize; they are, and should, also be trying to maximize entertainment value. if getting every call right requires stopping games to view every play in slow motion from angles that the refs couldn’t see, at some point it’s just not worth it. If the games are too long and boring, they aren’t worth watching. Leagues know full well that balancing these competing goals is a reality they have no choice but to deal with.

The exact same thing is true in adjudication. It’s important to try and be consistent, we should be outraged when there is overt bias for one group at the expense of another, and we shouldn’t ignore clear evidence of violations (at least, most of the time).

But the judicial system is designed to promote values other than just consistency. We do, and should, care about administrative costs and social consequences when making trade offs about how to manage cases. The Stevenson and Doleac paper I blogged about yesterday suggests that judges understand this the same way that the NBA does.