12 ms·

"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 n

"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 terrifying bit in the article. To convict a man of murder, and to send him to life in prison or perhaps to his own death, when you think he's innocent? It shocks me what people are capable of sometimes. But this article doesn't shock me, because I know what people are capable of. Kudos to the author for sticking to his moral compass in the face of adversity.

kiba 11y ago
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?
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  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.
  - cgm616 11y ago
    In this article, and apparently this happens a lot, jurors are not allowed to research the laws they are supposed to reach a verdict on. Also, the jurors cannot get the court transcript or ask the prosecution to repeat the charges. How is this the best alternative? Why can't jurors learn what they are incarcerating for?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      For a more in-depth look at the nature of the circus: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299
    - tzs 11y ago
      > In this article, and apparently this happens a lot, jurors are not allowed to research the laws they are supposed to reach a verdict on The judge includes the law the defendant is charged with violating and an explanation of what must be proved and what legal defenses that are (with advice from both the prosecution and defense on what to include and on the wording) in the jury instruction material given to the jury before deliberation. Unless the judge and the defense attorney seriously screw up, that should give the jury everything they need to know about the relevant laws.
  - simula67 11y ago
    Trained professional judges who understand these matters. This is called 'Bench Trials'.
    - snowwrestler 11y ago
      Impartiality and expertise are not necessarily correlated. In fact in my experience, experts tend to hold much stronger personal opinions about their area of expertise, than do members of the random general public.
    - mc32 11y ago
      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...
      - simula67 11y ago
        My apologies, but I find your comment somewhat confusing. > 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. > often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring "accidents" rather than pursuing murder, etc... How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Aren't they attacking the wrong part of the problem ? > An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases. I find it hard to believe that professionals would be more incapable of sympathy.
        ptaipale 11y ago
        > How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Haven't studied this, but I would expect that it's in order to break the cozy (word used above) inner-circle relationship of professional lawyers who work in courts, switching roles between judge and prosecutor. The problem being isolation of the legal profession from "lay people".
  - tzs 11y ago
    Have a two part trial, with two juries. Part one, with jury #1, just considers the facts. It does not attempt to apply the law to the facts to render a guilty/not-guilty verdict. Part two presents the facts as determined in part one to jury #2 (which was not present during part one), and jury #2 applies that law to those facts to render a verdict. The facts as presented to jury #2 are cleaned up to replace names with pseudonyms, and race, gender, etc., are removed (unless they are relevant to the applicable law).
    - morgante 11y ago
      That's essential how the appeals system works. Appeals don't reconsider facts, just the application of the law.
  - bababouy33 11y ago
    A deep neural net that has access to all data pertaining to the case (not a joke).
- onewaystreet 11y ago
  If you're guilty you want a jury trial. If you're innocent you want a bench trial.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    This 100% unless the trial judge was elected.
  - mystikal 11y ago
    You're saying a jury will reach the wrong verdict more than 50% of the time, and a bench will reach the right verdict more than 50% of the time? I don't disagree, but are there statistics?
    - taejo 11y ago
      That's not necessary. If we assume that both juries and judges pick the correct verdict with a certain probability independent of what the correct verdict is, then all that is required that the jury has a higher probability of being wrong than the judge.
      - mystikal 11y ago
        Yep, makes sense. So is there some kind of data to back up the claim that a jury is wrong more often? Perhaps verdicts are more likely to be overturned for juries?
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    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.
    - throwaway28474 11y ago
- coldtea 11y ago
  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.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > Jury's are representatives of what the society things happened. ... Of course [juries aren't] fool prouf... http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 (The author is a rather competent defense attorney.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
geomark 11y ago
Brings back memories. I served on the jury when Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys was on trial for including a rude poster in one of their albums[1]. Jury deliberation was a circus. One woman hung the poster up (it was pretty rude [2]), looked at it for a while, and said "Kinda makes you horny". [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys#Frankenchrist_and_obscenity_trial_.281985.E2.80.931986.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys#Frankenchrist_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape
- pcvarmint 11y ago
  Former prosecutor recants: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/285/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/285/t...
- e0 11y ago
  Haha. And did she vote to convict or aquit?
  - geomark 11y ago
    Of course she voted to acquit. So did the old guy who shouted "Nothing is obscene!" the moment he entered the jury deliberation room, despite the fact that Jello was not charged with obscenity. And the girl who said "The defense attorney is pretty cute."
    - icebraining 11y ago
      What was he charged with?
      - geomark 11y ago
        "Distribution of harmful matter to minors." The law requires a warning that says it shouldn't be sold to minors. Instead, they put on a sticker with a snarky remark about how some people might find the contents objectionable, "but life is like that" (something like that). So kids were buying the album and parents were freaking out when they found the poster hanging in their bedrooms. There was never really any notion about being charged with obscenity. Most people reject that out of hand anyway. The issue was that there is a law that attempts to ensure parents get some warning so they could decide if some materials may not be appropriate for their kids. The matter before the jury was to decide if that poster was that kind of material, and if the snarky sticker was sufficient warning.
ArleneBarlow 11y ago
This is why I believe women should not be allowed on the jury
tempestn 11y ago
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!
throw_this_away 11y ago
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_ancient 11y ago
  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....
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Isn't it that the best way of not getting jury service is to admit that you know anything about law or logical reasoning? I have an impression that the system actively selects against right people for the job.
- angdis 11y ago
  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".
- wfo 11y ago
  Don't worry this is very uncommon the vast majority of cases never see trial and are instead decided by the prosecutor threatening to destroy the life of a defendant guilty or not if they don't sign a (likely false) confession called a 'plea' in exchange for mercy.
s_kilk 11y ago
I'm not surprised. The very notion of a "jury of your peers" is fundamentally flawed. Imagine how dumb the average person is. Now realise that half of them are even dumber than that. Now imagine you've got a firing-squad of these morons deciding your fate for you, with no legal training and empty stomachs.
lukasm 11y ago
People have really skewed idea of what is the point of the system. It's not for a revenge or to find a scapegoat. It's to protect innocent, minimise violence.

kiba 11y ago

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?

snowwrestler 11y ago
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.
- cgm616 11y ago
  In this article, and apparently this happens a lot, jurors are not allowed to research the laws they are supposed to reach a verdict on. Also, the jurors cannot get the court transcript or ask the prosecution to repeat the charges. How is this the best alternative? Why can't jurors learn what they are incarcerating for?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    For a more in-depth look at the nature of the circus: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299
  - tzs 11y ago
    > In this article, and apparently this happens a lot, jurors are not allowed to research the laws they are supposed to reach a verdict on The judge includes the law the defendant is charged with violating and an explanation of what must be proved and what legal defenses that are (with advice from both the prosecution and defense on what to include and on the wording) in the jury instruction material given to the jury before deliberation. Unless the judge and the defense attorney seriously screw up, that should give the jury everything they need to know about the relevant laws.
- simula67 11y ago
  Trained professional judges who understand these matters. This is called 'Bench Trials'.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    Impartiality and expertise are not necessarily correlated. In fact in my experience, experts tend to hold much stronger personal opinions about their area of expertise, than do members of the random general public.
  - mc32 11y ago
    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...
    - simula67 11y ago
      My apologies, but I find your comment somewhat confusing. > 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. > often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring "accidents" rather than pursuing murder, etc... How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Aren't they attacking the wrong part of the problem ? > An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases. I find it hard to believe that professionals would be more incapable of sympathy.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        > How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Haven't studied this, but I would expect that it's in order to break the cozy (word used above) inner-circle relationship of professional lawyers who work in courts, switching roles between judge and prosecutor. The problem being isolation of the legal profession from "lay people".
- tzs 11y ago
  Have a two part trial, with two juries. Part one, with jury #1, just considers the facts. It does not attempt to apply the law to the facts to render a guilty/not-guilty verdict. Part two presents the facts as determined in part one to jury #2 (which was not present during part one), and jury #2 applies that law to those facts to render a verdict. The facts as presented to jury #2 are cleaned up to replace names with pseudonyms, and race, gender, etc., are removed (unless they are relevant to the applicable law).
  - morgante 11y ago
    That's essential how the appeals system works. Appeals don't reconsider facts, just the application of the law.
- bababouy33 11y ago
  A deep neural net that has access to all data pertaining to the case (not a joke).
onewaystreet 11y ago
If you're guilty you want a jury trial. If you're innocent you want a bench trial.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  This 100% unless the trial judge was elected.
- mystikal 11y ago
  You're saying a jury will reach the wrong verdict more than 50% of the time, and a bench will reach the right verdict more than 50% of the time? I don't disagree, but are there statistics?
  - taejo 11y ago
    That's not necessary. If we assume that both juries and judges pick the correct verdict with a certain probability independent of what the correct verdict is, then all that is required that the jury has a higher probability of being wrong than the judge.
    - mystikal 11y ago
      Yep, makes sense. So is there some kind of data to back up the claim that a jury is wrong more often? Perhaps verdicts are more likely to be overturned for juries?
- the_ancient 11y ago
  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.
  - throwaway28474 11y ago
coldtea 11y ago
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.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Jury's are representatives of what the society things happened. ... Of course [juries aren't] fool prouf... http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 (The author is a rather competent defense attorney.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

geomark 11y ago

Brings back memories. I served on the jury when Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys was on trial for including a rude poster in one of their albums[1]. Jury deliberation was a circus. One woman hung the poster up (it was pretty rude [2]), looked at it for a while, and said "Kinda makes you horny". [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys#Frankenchrist_and_obscenity_trial_.281985.E2.80.931986.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys#Frankenchrist_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_Landscape

pcvarmint 11y ago
Former prosecutor recants: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/285/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/285/t...
e0 11y ago
Haha. And did she vote to convict or aquit?
- geomark 11y ago
  Of course she voted to acquit. So did the old guy who shouted "Nothing is obscene!" the moment he entered the jury deliberation room, despite the fact that Jello was not charged with obscenity. And the girl who said "The defense attorney is pretty cute."
  - icebraining 11y ago
    What was he charged with?
    - geomark 11y ago
      "Distribution of harmful matter to minors." The law requires a warning that says it shouldn't be sold to minors. Instead, they put on a sticker with a snarky remark about how some people might find the contents objectionable, "but life is like that" (something like that). So kids were buying the album and parents were freaking out when they found the poster hanging in their bedrooms. There was never really any notion about being charged with obscenity. Most people reject that out of hand anyway. The issue was that there is a law that attempts to ensure parents get some warning so they could decide if some materials may not be appropriate for their kids. The matter before the jury was to decide if that poster was that kind of material, and if the snarky sticker was sufficient warning.

ArleneBarlow 11y ago

This is why I believe women should not be allowed on the jury

tempestn 11y ago

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!

throw_this_away 11y ago

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_ancient 11y ago
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....
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Isn't it that the best way of not getting jury service is to admit that you know anything about law or logical reasoning? I have an impression that the system actively selects against right people for the job.
angdis 11y ago
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".
wfo 11y ago
Don't worry this is very uncommon the vast majority of cases never see trial and are instead decided by the prosecutor threatening to destroy the life of a defendant guilty or not if they don't sign a (likely false) confession called a 'plea' in exchange for mercy.

s_kilk 11y ago

I'm not surprised. The very notion of a "jury of your peers" is fundamentally flawed. Imagine how dumb the average person is. Now realise that half of them are even dumber than that. Now imagine you've got a firing-squad of these morons deciding your fate for you, with no legal training and empty stomachs.

lukasm 11y ago

People have really skewed idea of what is the point of the system. It's not for a revenge or to find a scapegoat. It's to protect innocent, minimise violence.