Plus: The U.S. is sanctioning the International Criminal Court and AI has a God problem Good morning. Prediction markets are raising novel ethical concerns and insider-trading risks on everything from corporate auditing to U.S. military operations.

Those headaches are now at the courthouse door presenting particularly unusual challenges for the justice system. The most direct and obvious concern is the potential for jurors to bet on their own deliberations, creating financial incentives to reach particular outcomes, no matter the facts of the case.

Some court staffers are also potentially in positions to have inside knowledge of how deliberations are proceeding. Place your bets: During the summer murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, bettors wagered more than $100,000 on the verdict. Since a deadlocked jury forced a mistrial in early September, more than $500,000 in additional bets have been placed on whether the Massachusetts woman accused of killing her children will eventually be convicted. the bets were available on an offshore platform run by Polymarket.

The site also has hosted bets on the federal prosecution of Sean “Diddy” Combs and the government’s current case against ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Peer pressure: The accessibility and pervasiveness of betting platforms makes the possibility of corrupting jurors a real risk, said University of Chicago law professor M. Todd Henderson. But there is also a broader concern, he said, that prediction markets with heavy betting could influence how jurors think about a case.

If millions are wagered on the belief that a defendant will be acquitted, could that make a jury more reluctant to convict? New policies: Many courts haven’t spent much time thinking about prediction markets yet, court staff say, but at least a handful are beginning to address the issue. The U.S. District Court in Chicago, for example, is updating its insider-trading policies to prohibit employees from using on-the-job information to make prediction wagers.