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

161–170 of 229 posts

Re: Jury Duty

#161

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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…

You're getting downvoted, but I agree with you.

I think the problem is that people don't have respect for the system. The judge isn't the system, he's only one part of it, yet the author projects his lack of respect for the system onto the judge. Calling him "your honor" is a part reminding people, hey, we all need to be on our best behavior and be respectful.

Respect is something very lacking in society today.

Re: Jury Duty

#162

Post by TheBeardKing »

facepalm wrote: post #140

Non-American, don't know how the system works - how come they can eliminate people from the jury pool? I would have expected the jury selection to be completely random? There is no way the system can be fair if they get to select the jury.

It's intended to eliminate people with preconceived biases, but attorney motives for selecting jurors usually go far beyond that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection

Re: Jury Duty

#163

Post by ckozlowski »

TheBeardKing wrote: post #151
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…

Have you read into how big a sham our grand juries are? I'm currently serving on a federal grand jury, and several times a month they pay travel and per diem for dozens of people to listen to a one-sided argument by a US Assistant District Attorney to bring a case to trial. No defense is offered, and they can withhold as much evidence as they like. It's a total waste of time, and I'm sure costs the tax payers million…

An indictment is not a successful prosecution.

And it does cost money...money, in my opinion is well spent, because in brings in skeptical people such as yourself with the power to check an overzealous prosecutor with simply arresting people on flimsy charges.

There's no defense because no one has been charged; and if you decided that the prosecutor is full of shit, then it means an innocent person is not disrupted or tainted with legal action. That they withold evidence is to protect their sources....which is a trade-off for them, because to withhold is to weaken their case.

I see nothing ridiculous about it at all, really. You're serving a hugely important role as a check on the ability for the executive to go after people. It's a rare occasion where the government is directly answerable to YOU. Hold them to a high standard. And if you think they're trying to pull one over on you, the people, send them packing.

Re: Jury Duty

#164

Post by NoGravitas »

throwaway28474 wrote: post #141
the_ancient wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but you also want a jury trial if you're falsely accused of drug possession.

Re: Jury Duty

#165

Post by nraynaud »

spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #136
nraynaud wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a lot of the world, justice decisions are made by professional judges who have a lot of literature (laws, other decisions, and interpretation by higher courts) to guide their decisions. Which has the upside of more informed decisions (in France, it's interesting to see that professional judges seem more harsh than public jury tho.)

Um you mean the Inquisitorial system - not sure I would be happy with a system that came out of revolutionly tribunals and the terror.

nope, you can have accusatorial system with professional judges, the procedure is not implied by the quality of the judge.

Re: Jury Duty

#166

Post by masterponomo »

When I sat on a jury in 1989, the main goal of most of the jury was to get the decision over with in time to pick up their kids from school. We quickly found for the plaintiff against the main defendant. There were a slew of co-defendants, who aside from the reading of the charges had not been mentioned at all during the trial. No evidence, no description of their supposed involvement, nada. The foreman started to copy our verdict onto the forms for them as well. I objected, pointing out that we had only discussed the one defendant and needed to consider the others separately. Much protesting and eye-rolling ensued, but the urge to leave won out and the jury agreed to find all of the co-defendants not guilty. I was pleased with the outcome but appalled by the process. I would hate to be judged so carelessly by my peers. Yes, having 12 jurors does increase the odds of having someone put on the brakes and insist on proper procedure, but it is by no means guaranteed.

Re: Jury Duty

#167

Post by ckozlowski »

newjersey wrote: post #159
madaxe_again wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Moreover, jury selection is a touchy subject itself. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/discrimination-jury-s... > In order to show that the prosecutor’s dismissal of a juror was discriminatory, a defendant must show that it was based on race, ethnicity, or gender. A good legal defense is already out of reach of many people. I'd think this alone (fta) should cause a judge to throw out the prosecution from the cas…

That the defense didn't object to this, or ask the alternate ("Does anyone in here intrinsically trust the police?") perplexes me.

Re: Jury Duty

#168

Post by geomark »

icebraining wrote: post #135
geomark wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

What was he charged with?

"Distribution of harmful matter to minors." The law requires a warning that says it shouldn't be sold to minors. Instead, they put on a sticker with a snarky remark about how some people might find the contents objectionable, "but life is like that" (something like that). So kids were buying the album and parents were freaking out when they found the poster hanging in their bedrooms.

There was never really any notion about being charged with obscenity. Most people reject that out of hand anyway. The issue was that there is a law that attempts to ensure parents get some warning so they could decide if some materials may not be appropriate for their kids. The matter before the jury was to decide if that poster was that kind of material, and if the snarky sticker was sufficient warning.

Re: Jury Duty

#169

Post by ckozlowski »

ketralnis wrote: post #101

I sat on a civil jury trial between a boilermaker in the Navy that had been exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma, and a company that made asbestos insulation. Neither side could actually put the man and the company or its insulation in the same room at any point in the past. Lots and lots of companies made this type of insulation. (In an "accidental" outbust from one of the attorneys that we were instructed…

Civil trials in the U.S.(as opposed to criminal) are an entirely different sort. Google "U.S. Tort Reform" and you'll find treatises on the subject.

I agree, it's a total mess.

Re: Jury Duty

#170

Post by astrafoo »

ckozlowski wrote: post #157
madaxe_again wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"are not allowed to educate themselves about legal facts or the facts of the charges" Because they're not trained lawyers, and they haven't passed the bar. It's to keep them impartial and prevent them from presuming they know the law better and therefor enter with a conclusion without all of the facts. That's why the judge (who, depending on the level, is either directly-elected or appointed by the person you elected…

So a jury being lied to by the state attorney is better than a jury which did their own research (with all the faults this includes)?
Post reply on HN