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

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: Jury Duty

#71

Post by coldtea »

kiba wrote: post #43
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 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?

The idea is not that science or some "expert" judges those under trial.

It's that the society they live in finds them either guilty or not.

Jury's are representatives of what the society things happened.

It's an extremely democratic institution, and juries and their role they have been devised and praised by "trained people" including the very best legal minds.

Of course it's not fool prouf -- the same ways society and laws are not foul prof (e.g. consider racism). But those for things, an expert wouldn't help either.

Re: Jury Duty

#72

Post by mc32 »

simula67 wrote: post #58
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.

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

In Japan lay judges (citizens) were re-introduced into trials in order to offer defendants a possibly more sympathetic audience. In Japan, due to quite a few idiosyncrasies[1], prosecutors achieve upwards of 95% conviction rates.

An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases.

[1] often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring "accidents" rather than pursuing murder, etc...

Re: Jury Duty

#73

Post by coldtea »

simula67 wrote: post #58
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.

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.

Re: Jury Duty

#74

Post by desdiv »

geomark wrote: post #57
jacobolus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you admit you were ever on a hung jury, you are much more likely to be struck from the list, so while the author will have to serve jury duty, there’s a good chance the author won’t be on another jury any time soon, especially in another serious case.

I wish that had worked for me. I served 3 times, first time was a hung jury, next two were burglary and battery. Terrible experiences all of them. Wish I could have been excused.

Just curious, were you asked about your hung jury experience during the voir dire?

Re: Jury Duty

#75

Post by tempestn »

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 was going to post this same quote. It blows my mind. Not only does she think there's a reasonable chance he's innocent; she actually believes it's likely!

Re: Jury Duty

#76

Post by coldtea »

jacobolus wrote: post #42
fengwick3 wrote: post #20

Despite the other negative comments, I actually find this a vicarious account of the judicial system - a poignant reminder that behind any democratic system lies humans.

Friendly note: I think you want some word other than “vicarious”, which doesn’t make sense in context, the way the sentence is constructed. (I’m not precisely sure what you were trying to say, so I won’t suggest alternate words.)

Why would you say "vicarious" doesn't make sense in that context? It IS a second-hand account.

vicarious: "experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person" - synonyms: indirect, second-hand

Re: Jury Duty

#77

Post by danieltillett »

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.

This 100% unless the trial judge was elected.

Re: Jury Duty

#78

Post by geomark »

desdiv wrote: post #74
geomark wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish that had worked for me. I served 3 times, first time was a hung jury, next two were burglary and battery. Terrible experiences all of them. Wish I could have been excused.

Just curious, were you asked about your hung jury experience during the voir dire?

Yes. They asked if I had served on a jury before and if the jury had reached a verdict. The battery case was the second time I served. I answered yes that I had served and no the jury did not reach a verdict. They then asked what the prior case was about - maybe since it wasn't related they didn't boot me. The third time I served it was a burglary case so I answered that yes I had served twice before, once was a hung jury and once we arrived at a verdict. No further questions.

Re: Jury Duty

#79

Post by geomark »

desdiv wrote: post #8
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...

Perhaps the author's city's racial composition is very different from that of US's national average, hence his implicit complaint. Since the author wrote anonymously (and understandably so), there's no way for us to know either way.

That very well could be the case. But even if we knew the demographics of the community the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.

Re: Jury Duty

#80

Post by jonah »

thwyperson wrote: post #32
michael_storm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the defendant is guilty? What if he's innocent, but your refusal to help provide a strong defense causes him to be found guilty? Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure? If prosecutors can ensure that a strong defense is impossible simply by accusing someone of an appropriately heinous crime, then the criminal justice system h…

Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure? My other fear is that what happens when, with access to the facts or judicial procedure, I determine that the defendant actually is guilty. Please don't be complicit in that. We'll see.

Your duty, it seems, would be to bring some piece of Truth to the proceedings.

If they are guilty, it may help convict them, but if they are innocent, it may help exonerate them.

Regardlessly, bring Truth to the proceedings and leave your biases and opinions (valid or not) outside.

Post reply on HN