Jury Duty • Hacker News Board

Re: Jury Duty

#91

Post by AndyKelley » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:46 AM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #84

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...

On the other hand, we're supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers so, demographics aside, it's disturbing how often a person of color is convicted by a primarily white jury. We're seeing nationwide testimony, by how certain isolated events are receiving reactions that indicate that they aren't isolated, that police misconduct towards minorities is far more common that we white people would like to believe. And ye…

> On the other hand, we're supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers so, demographics aside, it's disturbing how often a person of color is convicted by a primarily white jury.

What the hell? Are you saying that people of color are automatically peers with each other because of their race?

peer: a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.

Re: Jury Duty

#92

Post by the_ancient » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:47 AM 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...

You assume the state has the desire to reach the truth, or justice.

The State has the desire to

1. End the Trial as fast as possible

2. Hold someone, anyone, to account for a crime no matter if that person actually committed said crime

The legal system has nothing to do with justice....

Re: Jury Duty

#93

Post by dclowd9901 » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:48 AM UTC

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?

If it's fiction, it's meaningless, as the anecdotes about jurors' lack of care were the most devastating parts.

That said, I would absolutely without a doubt believe this story based on my limited interactions with the general public.

Re: Jury Duty

#94

Post by shiro » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:49 AM UTC

"I imagine what an inverse 12 Angry Men would be like, starting with 11 jurors ready to acquit and Henry Fonda as the only one willing to convict. "

There's a Japanese film, 12 Tender Japaneses, which is exactly that---at the beginning everybody casually votes to acquit except one who insists more discussion. It's of course an homage to Reginald Rose, but it also depicts very well how typical Japanese people behave when they face to make a decision. (And there's a twist in plot so it's not just a reverse of 12 Angry Men, anyway).

Re: Jury Duty

#95

Post by the_ancient » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:50 AM UTC

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.

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.

Re: Jury Duty

#96

Post by AndyKelley » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:51 AM UTC

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…

I mean, it was a well written article and at the very least, a good story. It seems kind of silly to "save time" by not reading the article and then spending time complaining about it in the comments. Maybe press the back button and go get yourself a free SSL certificate ;-)

Re: Jury Duty

#97

Post by the_ancient » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:56 AM UTC

AndyKelley wrote: post #91

curun1r wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, we're supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers so, demographics aside, it's disturbing how often a person of color is convicted by a primarily white jury. We're seeing nationwide testimony, by how certain isolated events are receiving reactions that indicate that they aren't isolated, that police misconduct towards minorities is far more common that we white people would like to believe. And ye…

> On the other hand, we're supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers so, demographics aside, it's disturbing how often a person of color is convicted by a primarily white jury. What the hell? Are you saying that people of color are automatically peers with each other because of their race? peer: a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.

>peer: a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.

If that is your defination of a peer then it is likely this person was not judged by their peers...

a "peer" to the government is any citizen living in the jurisdiction of the court forming the jury....

Re: Jury Duty

#98

Post by kllvql » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:57 AM UTC

thwyperson wrote: post #24

Not quite jury duty but this story did strike a chord. I'm someone who strongly believes, in theory anyway, in the presumption of innocence and that everyone is entitled to a strong defense. A prosecutor should have to earn a conviction. However I also feel strongly that perpetrators of some crimes, upon conviction, should face harsh punishments. Earlier this week, we got a message from a defense attorney inquiring a…

I really appreciate the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing related to this case. Blindly accepting presumption of innocence, which I support in the justice system, is not something people typically do. This situation seems similar to the idea of jury nullification, which the article mentioned. If you choose not to help because you disagree with potentially helping the system make the wrong choice, I would support it for the same reason we choose juries. In the existing American justice system, the primary reason for juries is to have peers not ingrained in the system making judgement calls on the evidence they have.

Re: Jury Duty

#99

Post by the_ancient » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 7:57 AM UTC

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.

Re: Jury Duty

#100

Post by toast0 » Fri, Dec 04, 2015, 8:06 AM UTC

thwyperson wrote: post #24

Not quite jury duty but this story did strike a chord. I'm someone who strongly believes, in theory anyway, in the presumption of innocence and that everyone is entitled to a strong defense. A prosecutor should have to earn a conviction. However I also feel strongly that perpetrators of some crimes, upon conviction, should face harsh punishments. Earlier this week, we got a message from a defense attorney inquiring a…

> I'm torn. The part of me that believes in the right to a strong defense wants to assist, not necessarily because I support the defendant, but because the prosecutor shouldn't be a rubber stamp. The other part is wondering what happens if I help defendant get off and he hurts someone else.

If the defendant has committed the crime, but the verdict is not guilty; then there was insufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof, and the system worked as designed. You have done your part as a defense expert witness to help the system work as designed. It may also be the case that the prosecutor does a poor job of presenting evidence, or law enforcement did a poor job of collecting or preserving evidence.

The goal of a criminal case is not to determine if a defendant is guilty or innocent or not guilty; it's to determine if the evidence shows if the defendant is guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, and if not, to acquit the defendant of the specific charges and leave the matter closed. It's not quite the same. You don't always get one of those results though, if you have a hung jury, or other exception.

Even if the defendant is guilty, he should have a strong defense -- the system (and the state) must be kept honest.