Jury Duty • Hacker News Board

Re: Jury Duty

#171

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:25 PM UTC

powera wrote: post #50

thaumasiotes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote would seem to support the idea you object to. "I'm no Henry Fonda" explicitly draws a comparison between yourself and Henry Fonda, and this kind of rhetorical device is often used to suggest things that the bounds of propriety forbid you from saying outright. Imagine two political rivals campaigning against each other, Mr. Lowbrow and Mr. Classy. Mr. Lowbrow releases campaign literature to the effect that…

In this case, the author is clearly comparing another juror ("Henry") to Henry Fonda, not himself. Which is definitely not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.

> I think of him as Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. We will share this role.

You can tell me how this means he's not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.

Re: Jury Duty

#172

Post by astrafoo » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:26 PM UTC

benihana wrote: post #160

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…

> Do you all just keep the system because it keeps so many people employed following the pointless bureaucracy of it all? No, the main reason we keep it around is to give arrogant Europeans and Canadians something to feel superior about. It's not because in a nation with 300 million people in a space as vast as America, it's hard to get people to agree on how we should do things. Nope, it's cause we're idiots and we…

> Nope, it's cause we're idiots and we like inefficient things.

Let's have a look: Health care, public education, mass incarceration, anti-vaxxers, "war against drugs", "war against terrorism", free speech...

I think your theory checks out.

Re: Jury Duty

#173

Post by madaxe_again » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #156

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…

If an oil company CEO on trial for a crime got tried by a jury of other oil company CEOs, I agree the conviction rate would drop. I'm not sure how much it would improve the outcomes for society, though.

Yes, but the counterpoint is that if they let their buddy off the hook and this is later found to be the case, they all end up on a considerably pointier hook.

Speaking of, "the hook" was what you got in the Ottoman Empire instead of a jury trial. You'd be sat upon a large metal hook until you confessed or died.

Re: Jury Duty

#174

Post by _pmf_ » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:31 PM UTC

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…

> As a non American, the USA justice system honestly sounds like the worst possible system for justice imaginable.

You just have to love a justice system where the police chief, the district attorney and the judge are political offices and must appeal to the masses.

Re: Jury Duty

#175

Post by ethbro » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

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…

That's rebutted by the Janet Malcolm quote the author includes.

The absences of knowledge isn't impartiality: people don't render decisions from ignorance + logic.

They simply fabricate their best attempt at knowledge and apply that to the situation. So in this respect, it's not a choice between "relying on legal experts to provide legal information" and "using your own amateur legal knowledge" but rather "bastardizing legal experts' explanations to fit your own views" and "using your own amateur legal knowledge."

From that perspective, the latter seems a lot more preferable...

Re: Jury Duty

#176

Post by ckozlowski » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:36 PM UTC

astrafoo wrote: post #170

ckozlowski wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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)?

That's the job of the defense, who's trained and has done the research. It's their job to call bullshit on the prosecution in your presence.

So you have two sides who are trained and have (hopefully!) done the research i.e, the facts of the case. Provided they have (and the judge can and will throw out cases where this hasn't been done), then the judge will instruct on the points of law being decided here, which the jury will then decide on.

It's far from perfect, because people aren't perfect. But it's a degree better than the State simply deciding your guilt.

Sometimes the parties show up with half a case, the jury can't agree, and the foreman throws up their hands and says "This is all bollocks", and everyone goes home. Which is what happened in the article.

Re: Jury Duty

#177

Post by ckozlowski » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #175

ckozlowski wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

That's rebutted by the Janet Malcolm quote the author includes. The absences of knowledge isn't impartiality: people don't render decisions from ignorance + logic. They simply fabricate their best attempt at knowledge and apply that to the situation. So in this respect, it's not a choice between "relying on legal experts to provide legal information" and "using your own amateur legal knowledge" but rather "bastardizi…

I think the intent is to have people "relying on legal experts to provide legal information". What often happens is "bastardizing legal experts' explanations to fit your own views". I suspect there's a fear that trying to apply the law on one's own leads to the latter happening more. But one could argue that it happens anyways, as you point out.

I wouldn't argue the absence of bias, we seem to be in agreement there, and I think that's the real point of the article. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to be aimed at the jury system in general. In my opinion, it's not a fault of the jury system, but a fault of people. The jury system, and the instructions given (that we're debating now) are meant to try and minimize that, but they're far from perfect.

The question then becomes, "how do we best get jurors the information they need, while preserving their impartiality?" And I think that's a hard thing to do.

Re: Jury Duty

#178

Post by astrafoo » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

ckozlowski wrote: post #176

astrafoo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

That's the job of the defense, who's trained and has done the research. It's their job to call bullshit on the prosecution in your presence. So you have two sides who are trained and have (hopefully!) done the research i.e, the facts of the case. Provided they have (and the judge can and will throw out cases where this hasn't been done), then the judge will instruct on the points of law being decided here, which the…

> That's the job of the defense

Which might not exist depending on the jury's job. See a few recent of the recent cases were a jury decided to not indict police officers for killing blacks based on citations from the law given by the DA/SA which were "accidentally" wrong.

No defense involved.

Re: Jury Duty

#179

Post by angdis » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

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...

The reality is actually the opposite of what you're thinking. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is taken by MANY jurors to mean that _any_ doubt no matter how remote means "not guilty".

Re: Jury Duty

#180

Post by Tenhundfeld » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

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.

I've recounted my jury duty experience several times on HN (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10056421). So, I won't retell the whole thing. The short version is it was a DUI trial for a guy having a party in his front yard and playing music (too) loudly from his truck. That is, he wasn't driving or planning to drive, but he was intoxicated with his keys in the ignition of an automobile – technically a DUI. I ended up being the sole not guilty vote. Technically, he broke the law, but I wasn't going to give the guy a DUI for that behavior – possibly a felony, probably lose/suspend his license, possibly lose a job, etc. Anyway, it was really hard to be the lone dissenter when everybody else just wants to be done and go home to their families or whatever.

I just wanted to comment that most people seem to be totally unaware of jury nullification, and you need to be careful explicitly mentioning the idea. Judges can and have removed jurors who are openly engaging in jury nullification.

So, educate yourself on the topic beforehand if you get a jury duty summons. Thankfully, I'd discussed the issue with a lawyer friend.