Jury Duty • Hacker News Board

Re: Jury Duty

#11

Post by powera » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 3:57 AM UTC

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias?

What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading.

EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't get what if anything this guy is trying to say, other than simply "it's like The Breakfast Club".

Re: Jury Duty

#12

Post by amateur_soclgst » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 3:59 AM UTC

Wait so this article is basically him saying that the system worked?

That's the impression that I got. Even disregarding his early learnings towards high-school level leftist protest and mistrust of the government, doesn't his careful consideration of the case show the reasons why we use a jury system? Even if the 'mob' e.g. the other jurors decide that a person is guilty, one or two reasonable arguments can decide otherwise.

It seems to me that everything worked out as it should. I wouldn't feel bad if I was the author. (oh and he'll be back in court, serving a case in most states only gives you a 3-5 year reprieve from jury duty)

Re: Jury Duty

#13

Post by amateur_soclgst » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

powera wrote: post #11

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias? What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading. EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't…

Delusions of grandeur?

He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star, but I'm no psychologist.

It might be hard, but try to understand the minority perspective in viewing the system, you might trust any part of it, and you'll see things like bias and privilege even when they don't exist.

Re: Jury Duty

#14

Post by montecarl » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:06 AM UTC

powera wrote: post #11

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias? What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading. EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't…

It is one persons detailed account of a very important aspect of our society that few people know much about (I personally do not know anyone who has actually served on a jury let alone in a murder trial). I enjoyed reading it. I think it would be worth reading to understand how someone felt throughout this process whether or not you agreed with that persons feelings or interpretation. After all, if you are on trial this juror (or jury) may be representative of who will judge you.

Re: Jury Duty

#15

Post by aorloff » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:19 AM UTC

powera wrote: post #11

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias? What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading. EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't…

No, this guy seems like a real human being. Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals.

There's lots of "rules" in life, and our job as humans is figuring out which ones matter.

Re: Jury Duty

#16

Post by jrockway » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:23 AM UTC

amateur_soclgst wrote: post #12

Wait so this article is basically him saying that the system worked? That's the impression that I got. Even disregarding his early learnings towards high-school level leftist protest and mistrust of the government, doesn't his careful consideration of the case show the reasons why we use a jury system? Even if the 'mob' e.g. the other jurors decide that a person is guilty, one or two reasonable arguments can decide o…

I think the conclusion from 12 Angry Men is "holy shit, what if Henry Fonda weren't there".

Re: Jury Duty

#17

Post by wtallis » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:26 AM UTC

aorloff wrote: post #15

powera wrote: post #11

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias? What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading. EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't…

No, this guy seems like a real human being. Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals. There's lots of "rules" in life, and our job as humans is figuring out which ones matter.

I agree. A juror who believes in following the rules for the sake of following the rules is terrifying. The goal of our legal system is (or should be) justice rather than mere law enforcement, and it's never appropriate to ignore the fact that every component of the system is fallible.

Re: Jury Duty

#18

Post by amateur_soclgst » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:30 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #16

amateur_soclgst wrote: post #12

Wait so this article is basically him saying that the system worked? That's the impression that I got. Even disregarding his early learnings towards high-school level leftist protest and mistrust of the government, doesn't his careful consideration of the case show the reasons why we use a jury system? Even if the 'mob' e.g. the other jurors decide that a person is guilty, one or two reasonable arguments can decide o…

I think the conclusion from 12 Angry Men is "holy shit, what if Henry Fonda weren't there".

Hrm, good point, didn't really think of it that way.

Re: Jury Duty

#19

Post by jjoonathan » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:36 AM UTC

amateur_soclgst wrote: post #13

powera wrote: post #11

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias? What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading. EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't…

Delusions of grandeur? He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star, but I'm no psychologist. It might be hard, but try to understand the minority perspective in viewing the system, you might trust any part of it, and you'll see things like bias and privilege even when they don't exist.

> He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star

From TFA:

> I’m no Henry Fonda.

Jesus, did you even read the thing?

Re: Jury Duty

#20

Post by fengwick3 » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 4:38 AM UTC

Despite the other negative comments, I actually find this a vicarious account of the judicial system - a poignant reminder that behind any democratic system lies humans.