6 ms·

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 o

by 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.)

by kiba 11y ago

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.)