51–60 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as concerned as he was by the possibility of a false > conviction without also being concerned by the > possibility of a false acquittal. Isn't that a natural consequence of innocent until proven guilty?
[deleted]
"Edith looks up from a game of solitaire and casually mentions that she actually thinks the murder was committed by the accomplice, who was never found and is not on trial. But since the defendant’s lawyer did such a poor job exonerating him, she concludes, she’s going to deliver a guilty verdict. My jaw drops. No one questions her obviously flawed reasoning, because she’s on their side." This, for me, was the most t…
I don't really trust jury/layman to make the correct decision. I mean, you're taking ordinary people, untrained to probe the gobbyspeak of lawyers or matters of science And you're expecting them to render guilty or innocent verdicts?
Like other aspects of republican democracy, it's not the best system, but it beats all known alternatives.
Earlier 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.
When comparing proportions (in this case racial makeup of juries versus racial makeup of the population) you want a sample size large enough that you have at least 5 expected cases for each group. In this case the expected cases are the population proportion (p) times the number of jurors (n). So you would need n * p >= 5 and since Asians are the lowest proportion at 5% you would need data on at least 100 jurors. Then you could do a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test to see if something is really going on.
If it seems like I'm being geeky it's only because I just recently worked on a problem exactly like this, determining if jury demographics matched population demographics. Turns out in many cases there IS something going on, but then the reasons for it aren't always what you think. One reason is that in some communities there is a shortage of eligible jurors due to high rates of felony convictions.
Then again, I knew about some of this from the excellent Illustrated Guide to Criminal Justice, so I wasn't totally surprised.
In the end, does it even matter if it happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really trust jury/layman to make the correct decision. I mean, you're taking ordinary people, untrained to probe the gobbyspeak of lawyers or matters of science And you're expecting them to render guilty or innocent verdicts?
Who would you trust to make the right decision? The prosecutor? The defense attorney? Like other aspects of republican democracy, it's not the best system, but it beats all known alternatives.
How is this the best alternative? Why can't jurors learn what they are incarcerating for?
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…
If you admit you were ever on a hung jury, you are much more likely to be struck from the list, so while the author will have to serve jury duty, there’s a good chance the author won’t be on another jury any time soon, especially in another serious case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really trust jury/layman to make the correct decision. I mean, you're taking ordinary people, untrained to probe the gobbyspeak of lawyers or matters of science And you're expecting them to render guilty or innocent verdicts?
Who would you trust to make the right decision? The prosecutor? The defense attorney? Like other aspects of republican democracy, it's not the best system, but it beats all known alternatives.
It takes a lot more courage to let a possibly guilty person go free than to convict a possibly innocent one.
Always show up for jury duty if you can.
"Edith looks up from a game of solitaire and casually mentions that she actually thinks the murder was committed by the accomplice, who was never found and is not on trial. But since the defendant’s lawyer did such a poor job exonerating him, she concludes, she’s going to deliver a guilty verdict. My jaw drops. No one questions her obviously flawed reasoning, because she’s on their side." This, for me, was the most t…
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys#Frankenchrist_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape