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

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Jury Duty

#141

Post by throwaway28474 »

the_ancient wrote: post #95
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.

That is not always true, it really does depend on the crime. Jury Nullification does still exist and is becoming more popular especially for things like Drug Laws. Also some self defense cases are better for Jury, where as some may be better for a Bench Trial It depends on if your guilt or innocent hangs on an emotional reaction, or a strict application of the law.

> That is not always true, it really does depend on the crime. Jury Nullification does still exist and is becoming more popular especially for things like Drug Laws.

How is that a counter-example to the guideline "if you're guilty you want a jury trial"? It sounds like you're saying if I'm guilty of drug possession I want a jury trial.

Re: Jury Duty

#142

Post by beerbajay »

geomark wrote: post #60
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…

Brings back memories. I served on the jury when Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys was on trial for including a rude poster in one of their albums[1]. Jury deliberation was a circus. One woman hung the poster up (it was pretty rude [2]), looked at it for a while, and said "Kinda makes you horny". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys#Frankenchrist_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape

Oh god, more stories please, this sounds amazing.

Re: Jury Duty

#143

Post by mcherm »

onewaystreet wrote: post #61
kiba wrote: post #43

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?

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

Some judges are anything but impartial, and are seemingly committed to getting a conviction at all costs. In fact this is one of the problems that the jury system is designed to protect us from.

An example: https://popehat.com/2013/08/09/the-proper-function-of-a-jury...

Re: Jury Duty

#144

Post by zappo2938 »

geomark wrote: post #68
e0 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. And did she vote to convict or aquit?

Of course she voted to acquit. So did the old guy who shouted "Nothing is obscene!" the moment he entered the jury deliberation room, despite the fact that Jello was not charged with obscenity. And the girl who said "The defense attorney is pretty cute."

Surprising looking at the condom, if the glove fit you can't acquit or something.

Re: Jury Duty

#145

Post by d_t_w »

RyanZAG wrote: post #118

As a non American, the USA justice system honestly sounds like the worst possible system for justice imaginable. I don't think I could design a worse system if I tried. Do you all just keep the system because it keeps so many people employed following the pointless bureaucracy of it all? The people making the decisions have no training in law at all, yet they have to decide if the law was broken. They get a brief spo…

Every complex system can be defined in terms of trade-offs, right? Trial by Jury has a fairly extensive history outside of the US, and while not perfect it is a balance against a potentially corrupt establishment. I think if I had to choose trial by a jury of my peers, or by a judge, I'd probably opt for my peers.

I think the bigger problem in the US appears to be mandatory minimums, prosecutors driven by win ratios, pre-trial plea bargaining, and clearly a deep vein of institutional racism (something many other countries also suffer from).

Beyond that, I thought the original article was beautifully written, I enjoyed it.

Re: Jury Duty

#146

Post by TeMPOraL »

coldtea wrote: post #73
simula67 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trained professional judges who understand these matters. This is called 'Bench Trials'.

Nothing can be as biased and conservative as "trained professional judges". Not to mention they tend to reflect the interests and prejudices of their kind and class -- not the society at large, who is supposed to be the one whose moral system and will is to be enforced in the legal/justice system.

Is it really worse than delegating it to general population, whose interests and prejudices are shaped by bullshit media narratives, and whose primary interest in the case is to get out of it as fast as possible?

Re: Jury Duty

#148

Post by puredemo »

the_ancient wrote: post #99
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…

If you believe what is described in this article is working and healthy justice system then I am sad for you.

Sure, letting a murderer off who signed a confession is pretty daft.

Re: Jury Duty

#149

Post by puredemo »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #86
cgm616 wrote: post #55

It's interesting to look at if this article is fiction or non-fiction. It is certainly amazing writing with a strong message, but seems to be so strange to be non-fiction. 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?

In the end, does it even matter if it happened? Yes, a man could have been sent to prison for a murder where reasonable doubt exists about whether or not he did it.

Gee, if only there was a signed confession. Oh wait.

Re: Jury Duty

#150

Post by madaxe_again »

d_t_w wrote: post #145
RyanZAG wrote: post #118

As a non American, the USA justice system honestly sounds like the worst possible system for justice imaginable. I don't think I could design a worse system if I tried. Do you all just keep the system because it keeps so many people employed following the pointless bureaucracy of it all? The people making the decisions have no training in law at all, yet they have to decide if the law was broken. They get a brief spo…

Every complex system can be defined in terms of trade-offs, right? Trial by Jury has a fairly extensive history outside of the US, and while not perfect it is a balance against a potentially corrupt establishment. I think if I had to choose trial by a jury of my peers, or by a judge, I'd probably opt for my peers. I think the bigger problem in the US appears to be mandatory minimums, prosecutors driven by win ratios,…

The thing is, "peers" has had its meaning mutated beyond recognition over the ages.

A jury of your peers used to mean exactly that - people who were familiar with you, the social circumstances that lead to your being in the dock, who had empathy both for you and for the law. Part of the tradition comes from the Frankpledge and tythings, which required you and your peers to collectively police one another, and endure collective punishment if you failed in your duty to justice. In addition, early juries were responsible for investigating the purported crime themselves, and were allowed to acquire information for themselves.

This of course all lead to a degree of corruption (in fact, significant corruption in later years), but was potentially an ultimately fairer system, less biased in favour of conviction.

Having a jury prevaricate on the outcome of a trial concerning someone who comes from a different world to them, who don't understand the nuance of the reality that faces them, who are not allowed to educate themselves about legal facts or the facts of the charges, frankly beggars belief - but it's what we have.

Post reply on HN