California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries • Hacker News Board

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#161

Post by larnmar » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

esyir wrote: post #31

larnmar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily someone invented La Croix so you can just drink your water fizzy, lightly flavoured, and in a super-wasteful tiny can.

Is aluminium worse than plastic if recycled?

Not sure, although you’d think the energy cost of re-making the can each time would be pretty significant. Also tou need to drink two cans to replace one water bottle.

My other favourite “environmentally friendly” thirst quencher when I can’t get bottled water? Coconut water, imported from god-knows-where.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#162

Post by alasdair_ » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 8:44 PM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #109

Chathamization wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should put a limit on how weird or explicitly unfair the law can be. The defense isn't allowed to tell jurors about jury nullification and there's an effort to keep out any potential jurors who are aware of it. In general there seems to be a big effort to not have jurors think to much on their own. Once during selection I mentioned how unreliable eye witness testimony can be (they were trying to weed out anyone…

I've had to sit in the room more than once waiting to see if any trials wanted to actually select a jury. There were only two times when I was in the room while the jury was selected. Once, when they filled up the jury before they asked me anything, and the other time when I was actually put on the jury. I think it's very telling that the first time, the prosecutor kept asking if people would apply the law as written…

>For the record, in the US, if you'd rather take your chances with just the judge, you can waive your right to a jury. But most people accused of crimes seem to believe the jury is a better bet.

Apparently this happens quite a lot in extreme cases like child rape or murder where the accused probably committed the crime but has a defense that replies on legal technicalities. They know that a jury would likely ignore the instructions to focus on the exact law and find them guilty because, well, they probably did it.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#163

Post by thenewnewguy » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

vishnu_ks wrote: post #160

gamblor956 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "anonymous officer" is misstating the way the rules actually work to the point of basically lying about them. (Actual rules: http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/CalculatingCusto... ) Custody credits. For crimes committed after October 2011, defendants who do not misbehave while in jail will receive 1 day of "conduct credits" for every 1 days of actual jail time served. Felons will similarly receive 1 day…

Can you listen to the podcast from 12th minute for a few minutes so that we all are in same page? Its highly possible I oversimplified and missed some key elements since I listened to this episode a while back.

Hi, not the original poster here but someone familiar with California's justice system. I went ahead and listened for a bit to what the podcast and its guest had to say.

Your relaying of the podcast, while a little simplified, is not the problem - there aren't "key elements" missing. The problem is that the information on the podcast is blatantly wrong.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#164

Post by brigandish » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 12:40 AM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #129

brigandish wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if they'd had their white nationalists cleared out by outside influence it would have. That's what it took with Germany, they should thank the Americans for their part in that. Regardless, the foolproof is the enemy of the good. I doubt whataboutery based on whose deeply immoral and harmful behaviour is worse , of all things, is the way to win that argument.

>Maybe if they'd had their white nationalists cleared out by outside influence it would have. That's what it took with Germany I don't think "cleared out" is the right word. The war killed indiscriminately, and only 200 or so were sentenced to prison. Removing those people from power, let alone the country, would have left to few competent people to run a government. What happened was showing people why Nazis are bad…

> You started with "your system is bad because of the one thing that happened 80 years ago"

I did? Strange, but those quote marks are around something I've never said or written.

> I don't think "cleared out" is the right word. The war killed indiscriminately, and only 200 or so were sentenced to prison. Removing those people from power, let alone the country, would have left to few competent people to run a government.

"Cleared out", while being something I have actually written - in this thread even! - is the correct phrase because it's what happend after the war in an initiative termed denazification. 400,000 Germans were interned[1], which is a tad more than 200.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#165

Post by brigandish » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 12:52 AM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #132

brigandish wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, this for me has always been the glaring difference between continental Europe which is largely under a civil law system, and Britain, which has a common law system (and hence, the US, Canada, Australia…) The different systems are completely at odds philosophically and require a completely different attitude, which explains so much - Brexit and the antipathy of many Brits towards the EU, and the EU itself…

European countries have a jury system, usually reserved to criminal cases with long sentences, like a murder. Germany is the exception. Abolished jury in 1924. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

While technically true, I wouldn't characterise that as "hav[ing] a jury system" but of those systems making use of a jury in exceptional cases or a very limited capacity. Even then I would feel it mischaracterised the system to anyone from the Anglosphere.

Greece, for instance, has a jury made up of judges. That's not a jury, that's an equivocation!

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#166

Post by brigandish » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 12:53 AM UTC

akimball wrote: post #128

brigandish wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, this for me has always been the glaring difference between continental Europe which is largely under a civil law system, and Britain, which has a common law system (and hence, the US, Canada, Australia…) The different systems are completely at odds philosophically and require a completely different attitude, which explains so much - Brexit and the antipathy of many Brits towards the EU, and the EU itself…

There isn't a lot of contest about free speech in the US. Some, yes, but not much. The objections to getting shot are much more motivating than the objections to being spoken to or even about.

You should try Europe, there's plenty of contest about it there, and with plenty of reference to the US.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#167

Post by Thorrez » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #125

andrewnicolalde wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And whoever was in charge of ensuring an unbiased jury was willing to take that chance?

They pick jurors trying to guess who will go their way or help rally other jurors. Nothing to do with removing bias, if anything they want bias the direction that suits them.

Each side has no goal to remove bias, but I think the overall process does. By allowing each side to exclude some people, the most biased outliers will likely be removed, and more middle of the road people will remain.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#168

Post by vishnu_ks » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 5:27 AM UTC

thenewnewguy wrote: post #163

vishnu_ks wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you listen to the podcast from 12th minute for a few minutes so that we all are in same page? Its highly possible I oversimplified and missed some key elements since I listened to this episode a while back.

Hi, not the original poster here but someone familiar with California's justice system. I went ahead and listened for a bit to what the podcast and its guest had to say. Your relaying of the podcast, while a little simplified, is not the problem - there aren't "key elements" missing. The problem is that the information on the podcast is blatantly wrong.

Okay. Thank you for the confirmation.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#169

Post by Fjolsvith » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #162

maxlybbert wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had to sit in the room more than once waiting to see if any trials wanted to actually select a jury. There were only two times when I was in the room while the jury was selected. Once, when they filled up the jury before they asked me anything, and the other time when I was actually put on the jury. I think it's very telling that the first time, the prosecutor kept asking if people would apply the law as written…

>For the record, in the US, if you'd rather take your chances with just the judge, you can waive your right to a jury. But most people accused of crimes seem to believe the jury is a better bet. Apparently this happens quite a lot in extreme cases like child rape or murder where the accused probably committed the crime but has a defense that replies on legal technicalities. They know that a jury would likely ignore t…

> They know that a jury would likely ignore the instructions to focus on the exact law and find them guilty because, well, they probably did it.

Or, if they probably didn't do it (perhaps school nurse convinced the teenager she had been abused and the police officer led the kid into saying what would make up a charge) the accused would worry that the witch hunt attitude of most people (who have children) would not give them a fair shake.

My sister and my father had a strained relationship during her teenager years, and my mother tried to coach her through a criminal charge against him to help her divorce case. Thankfully, my sister eventually relented and recanted. But if it had gone to trial, my father would have not been fairly judged by a jury.