Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jury Duty

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 229 posts

Re: Jury Duty

#121

Post by tzs »

geomark wrote: post #5
rayiner wrote: post #2

> In the end, only two men of color make it to the jury, and I am one of them. The other is Latino. There are two Latina women, one African-American woman, and one Asian woman. The remaining six jurors are white. Thats basically the racial composition of the U.S. Indeed, people of color are over-represented in that jury.

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...

> 2/12=17% Black

There was one black woman and no black men [1], so that should be 1/12=8% Black. I don't see anything in the article that lets us figure out what category the author belongs in. He's a male non-black non-latino who describes himself as a person of color, which leaves open a lot of possibilities.

[1] "Every black man had a story: police harassment, spurious arrests, intimidation. They were all eliminated"

Re: Jury Duty

#122

Post by adrianN »

agiamas wrote: post #111
geomark wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way. The three times I served on a jury were all the same. Very few people bothered to read or try to understand the jury instructions. Few considered the evidence that was presented. Most were utterly clueless, totally lacking the ability to perform any logical reasoning. Most just voted their biases. Although, if you have a sharp attorney he could very well get a hung jury for you even if the eviden…

these same people are voting for your president or prime minister or MP. If anything, the (unfortunately, long term..) solution is to educate these people, not to abolish jury duty.

You could also abolish voting. /s

Re: Jury Duty

#123

Post by geomark »

tzs wrote: post #121
geomark wrote: post #5

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...

> 2/12=17% Black There was one black woman and no black men [1], so that should be 1/12=8% Black. I don't see anything in the article that lets us figure out what category the author belongs in. He's a male non-black non-latino who describes himself as a person of color, which leaves open a lot of possibilities. [1] "Every black man had a story: police harassment, spurious arrests, intimidation. They were all elimina…

Oh, I misunderstood that he was a black male. It's a mystery to me what race a non-black non-latino person of color is.

The sample size is too damn small!

Added: I guess I'm not used to the term "person of color." It means "a person who is not white or of European parentage." Many people other than blacks and latinos could identify as people of color.

Re: Jury Duty

#124

Post by TeMPOraL »

agiamas wrote: post #111
geomark wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way. The three times I served on a jury were all the same. Very few people bothered to read or try to understand the jury instructions. Few considered the evidence that was presented. Most were utterly clueless, totally lacking the ability to perform any logical reasoning. Most just voted their biases. Although, if you have a sharp attorney he could very well get a hung jury for you even if the eviden…

these same people are voting for your president or prime minister or MP. If anything, the (unfortunately, long term..) solution is to educate these people, not to abolish jury duty.

Good luck with that. We'd have to start with totally remaking news media, or even getting rid of them altogether - it's them who present a new outrage every day with a handy judgement to cache and retrieve the next time you see a similar looking situation.

But "free speech!", "free media - the cornerstone of democracy!", something something.

Re: Jury Duty

#125

Post by TeMPOraL »

throw_this_away wrote: post #90
YorkianTones wrote: post #29

"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…

Reading that quote was incredibly disheartening; That people could be so cavalier about sending a person to jail (possibly forever) even when there's obviously reasonable doubt. I've never served on a jury, but it seems like the state should put more effort into teaching jurors that "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't just an abstract idea...

Isn't it that the best way of not getting jury service is to admit that you know anything about law or logical reasoning? I have an impression that the system actively selects against right people for the job.

Re: Jury Duty

#126

Post by taejo »

mystikal wrote: post #81
onewaystreet wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're guilty you want a jury trial. If you're innocent you want a bench trial.

You're saying a jury will reach the wrong verdict more than 50% of the time, and a bench will reach the right verdict more than 50% of the time? I don't disagree, but are there statistics?

That's not necessary. If we assume that both juries and judges pick the correct verdict with a certain probability independent of what the correct verdict is, then all that is required that the jury has a higher probability of being wrong than the judge.

Re: Jury Duty

#127

Post by EdiX »

shiro wrote: post #94

"I imagine what an inverse 12 Angry Men would be like, starting with 11 jurors ready to acquit and Henry Fonda as the only one willing to convict. " There's a Japanese film, 12 Tender Japaneses, which is exactly that---at the beginning everybody casually votes to acquit except one who insists more discussion. It's of course an homage to Reginald Rose, but it also depicts very well how typical Japanese people behave w…

> 12 Tender Japaneses

The only thing I can find googling this is a worldwar 2 aircraft carrier. Can I have the original title in romanji I want to see if it has been dubbed or subtitled.

Re: Jury Duty

#128

Post by s_kilk »

YorkianTones wrote: post #29

"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'm not surprised. The very notion of a "jury of your peers" is fundamentally flawed.

Imagine how dumb the average person is. Now realise that half of them are even dumber than that.

Now imagine you've got a firing-squad of these morons deciding your fate for you, with no legal training and empty stomachs.

Re: Jury Duty

#129

Post by morgante »

tzs wrote: post #109
snowwrestler wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have a two part trial, with two juries. Part one, with jury #1, just considers the facts. It does not attempt to apply the law to the facts to render a guilty/not-guilty verdict. Part two presents the facts as determined in part one to jury #2 (which was not present during part one), and jury #2 applies that law to those facts to render a verdict. The facts as presented to jury #2 are cleaned up to replace names with…

That's essential how the appeals system works. Appeals don't reconsider facts, just the application of the law.

Re: Jury Duty

#130

Post by morgante »

curun1r wrote: post #84
geomark wrote: post #5

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...

On the other hand, we're supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers so, demographics aside, it's disturbing how often a person of color is convicted by a primarily white jury. We're seeing nationwide testimony, by how certain isolated events are receiving reactions that indicate that they aren't isolated, that police misconduct towards minorities is far more common that we white people would like to believe. And ye…

A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of your race.

The United States is a white majority country. Of course the majority of jurors are white, even when the defendant is black.

Post reply on HN