[deleted]
Jury Duty
31–40 of 229 posts
Re: Jury Duty
#32Not quite jury duty but this story did strike a chord. I'm someone who strongly believes, in theory anyway, in the presumption of innocence and that everyone is entitled to a strong defense. A prosecutor should have to earn a conviction. However I also feel strongly that perpetrators of some crimes, upon conviction, should face harsh punishments. Earlier this week, we got a message from a defense attorney inquiring a…
Why do you assume the defendant is guilty? What if he's innocent, but your refusal to help provide a strong defense causes him to be found guilty? Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure? If prosecutors can ensure that a strong defense is impossible simply by accusing someone of an appropriately heinous crime, then the criminal justice system h…
Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure?
My other fear is that what happens when, with access to the facts or judicial procedure, I determine that the defendant actually is guilty.
Please don't be complicit in that.
We'll see.
Re: Jury Duty
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. Juries do not exist to selectively exercise "humanity" by ignoring the rules. They exist because any more narrowly-drawn pool of decision-makers could more easily be accused of bias and partiality.
It's not about accusations of bias, it's about the fact of bias. Specialization tends to narrow your worldview and breed conformity. That's how regulatory capture happens even in the absence of overt bribery. Juries aren't just for show.
Now consider this: if the addition of the diversity of juries tends to improve the fairness of our legal system, it has to be due to the influence of jurors that don't think and act and decide according to the norms of the rest of the legal system.
Re: Jury Duty
#34Not quite jury duty but this story did strike a chord. I'm someone who strongly believes, in theory anyway, in the presumption of innocence and that everyone is entitled to a strong defense. A prosecutor should have to earn a conviction. However I also feel strongly that perpetrators of some crimes, upon conviction, should face harsh punishments. Earlier this week, we got a message from a defense attorney inquiring a…
An accusation does not make a criminal. Your dissonance flies in the face of your strong belief in a presumption of innocence.
Yours is more of a bias to believe in a presumption of innocence for certain crimes because of personal reasons.
A good attorney won't give you details of a case.
Re: Jury Duty
#35[deleted]
> as concerned as he was by the possibility of a false
> conviction without also being concerned by the
> possibility of a false acquittal.
Re: Jury Duty
#36[deleted]
I am not surprised with the position of author. That is the principle of law. His narrative seems to indicate other 10 jurors took the position you are advocating which goes against the principle of law.
The fundamental principle of criminal law are
* presumption of innocence
* burden of proof on people (prosecutors)
* proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Re: Jury Duty
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you assume the defendant is guilty? What if he's innocent, but your refusal to help provide a strong defense causes him to be found guilty? Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure? If prosecutors can ensure that a strong defense is impossible simply by accusing someone of an appropriately heinous crime, then the criminal justice system h…
Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure? My other fear is that what happens when, with access to the facts or judicial procedure, I determine that the defendant actually is guilty. Please don't be complicit in that. We'll see.
My other fear is that what happens when, with access to the facts or judicial procedure, I determine that the defendant actually is guilty.
And when you determine that the defendant is innocent?
If you were falsely accused of the same crime, what would you think of someone who acts as you're proposing?
Re: Jury Duty
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what if you don't help, and the defendant is innocent but goes to jail for a heinous crime they did not commit? Does that possibility hold less weight with you? --- > not necessarily because I support the defendant Suppose the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Now that they're innocent, would you like to support them?
Does that possibility hold less weight with you? In general no, in this specific case, yes, because the evidence is so overwhelming. Think "twenty dead bodies found buried in defendant's basement next to bloody knives with defendant's fingerprints." I know this might be an unsatisfactory response, but I really can't be more specific without pointing to the actual case and I don't want to get into specifics in case I…
Ah, then you needn't worry much, because when your evidence is presented the jury will be thinking instead about the twenty dead bodies buried in the basement, right?
If the evidence is overwhelming, a little defense shouldn't hurt, and if it isn't, maybe they're innocent after all.
Re: Jury Duty
#39[deleted]
I am not surprised with the position of author. That is the principle of law. His narrative seems to indicate other 10 jurors took the position you are advocating which goes against the principle of law. The fundamental principle of criminal law are * presumption of innocence * burden of proof on people (prosecutors) * proof beyond reasonable doubt.
[deleted]
Re: Jury Duty
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the jury was 6/12=50% white, 3/12=25% Latino, 2/12=17% Black and 1/12=8% Asian. The US racial demographics are White: 64%, Hispanic: 16%, Black: 12%, Asian: 5% [1] Looks like Blacks and Latinos were overrepresented on that jury. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
Juries are composed of 12 people. Saying there are discrepancies between the jury pool and the US of less than 8 percentage points is somewhat silly -- making even the smallest change would not reduce the size of those errors.
In the particular case, this jury has two missing whites and a full extra "hispanic", so swapping the hispanic out for a white would improve everything. The other missing white is filled in for by a partially-black partially-Asian guy.