5 ms·

No, this guy seems like a real human being. Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch

by aorloff 11y ago

No, this guy seems like a real human being. Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals. There's lots of "rules" in life, and our job as humans is figuring out which ones matter.

wtallis 11y ago
I agree. A juror who believes in following the rules for the sake of following the rules is terrifying. The goal of our legal system is (or should be) justice rather than mere law enforcement, and it's never appropriate to ignore the fact that every component of the system is fallible.
- cat-dev-null 11y ago
  Agreed^million. Terrifying in a Stanford Prison meets Milgram way. I think all jurors should be put through Milgram-like experiments as condition for service, to determine if they're cowed by authority or possess their own moral compasses.
rayiner 11y ago
> Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals. Juries do not exist to selectively exercise "humanity" by ignoring the rules. They exist because any more narrowly-drawn pool of decision-makers could more easily be accused of bias and partiality.
- wtallis 11y ago
  It's not about accusations of bias, it's about the fact of bias. Specialization tends to narrow your worldview and breed conformity. That's how regulatory capture happens even in the absence of overt bribery. Juries aren't just for show. Now consider this: if the addition of the diversity of juries tends to improve the fairness of our legal system, it has to be due to the influence of jurors that don't think and act and decide according to the norms of the rest of the legal system.
cat-dev-null 11y ago
And a decent, rational, moral, courageous person whom realizes legality is rarely the same as justice. Too many people find it expedient to just shirk their responsibilities and send innocent people to prison, to death because "it's too much work" or "don't want conflict."
tempestn 11y ago
I largely agree, although couldn't the same argument be used by those who would enter a guilty verdict in the presence of reasonable doubt? It seems many people believe it's just to convict a person they believe to be guilty, even if it's conceivable that they aren't, and that "innocent until proven guilty" is just a meaningless rule.

by aorloff 11y ago

wtallis 11y ago

I agree. A juror who believes in following the rules for the sake of following the rules is terrifying. The goal of our legal system is (or should be) justice rather than mere law enforcement, and it's never appropriate to ignore the fact that every component of the system is fallible.

cat-dev-null 11y ago
Agreed^million. Terrifying in a Stanford Prison meets Milgram way. I think all jurors should be put through Milgram-like experiments as condition for service, to determine if they're cowed by authority or possess their own moral compasses.

rayiner 11y ago

> Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals. Juries do not exist to selectively exercise "humanity" by ignoring the rules. They exist because any more narrowly-drawn pool of decision-makers could more easily be accused of bias and partiality.

wtallis 11y ago
It's not about accusations of bias, it's about the fact of bias. Specialization tends to narrow your worldview and breed conformity. That's how regulatory capture happens even in the absence of overt bribery. Juries aren't just for show. Now consider this: if the addition of the diversity of juries tends to improve the fairness of our legal system, it has to be due to the influence of jurors that don't think and act and decide according to the norms of the rest of the legal system.

cat-dev-null 11y ago

And a decent, rational, moral, courageous person whom realizes legality is rarely the same as justice. Too many people find it expedient to just shirk their responsibilities and send innocent people to prison, to death because "it's too much work" or "don't want conflict."

tempestn 11y ago

I largely agree, although couldn't the same argument be used by those who would enter a guilty verdict in the presence of reasonable doubt? It seems many people believe it's just to convict a person they believe to be guilty, even if it's conceivable that they aren't, and that "innocent until proven guilty" is just a meaningless rule.