10 ms·

>I can't say I am a big believer in the whole concept of juries Care to elaborate on your objections? Juries exist so that it limits the ability of the State

>I can't say I am a big believer in the whole concept of juries Care to elaborate on your objections? Juries exist so that it limits the ability of the State / prosecutors or defense teams from lobbying or coercing 'professional jurors'. You do not want the people who are determining if a citizen broke a law beholden / under the thumb of the state. I say this even as someone who had a jury rule against myself in a civil case that both sides (defense and plaintiff) thought that a judge would rule in my favor. "Oh geez you've not been chosen to sit on a jury recently, your paycheck is going to be a bit short this month. Maybe if you agreed more with the prosecutors..."

twblalock 10y ago
The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In many cases, the jury comprises 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. These aren't exactly my views, but they are common objections raised against juries.
- ramblenode 10y ago
  > only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. This can also be turned around to the benefit of the prosecutor. Prosecutors may pursue legally bogus charges if they are dealing with an unsympathetic defendant. Either way, juries are more susceptible to emotional appeals than legal experts--a bad thing when the law is just, but a good thing when the law is wrong.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    I think you'll find that juries will convict even when the law is unjust. Jury nullification is probably not very widespread, despite beliefs to the contrary.
- bdhess 10y ago
  > The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In the jury system, juries are charged with answering questions as to the facts, and judges are charged with answering questions as to the law. It makes full use of the judge's expertise in the law as well as a small sample of society's expertise in human nature and the human experience. > Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Or put another way, someone who is technically guilty, but under circumstances where conviction of the technical violation would be unconscionable. > Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. Without getting into the merits of the obviously subjective argument here, it's not clear that the conclusion follows even if we grant the assumption. The superior justice system of a non-jury country might be perfected yet further by introducing juries.
  - makomk 10y ago
    The textbook explanation of juries is that they answer questions of fact and the judge answers questions of law, but that's fairly obviously not what they're doing in practice. Juries are required to hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, which means that they need to understand all the gnarly and difficult parts of the law and how it applies to the facts at hand. You can find an, errm, interesting explanation here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299
- curried_haskell 10y ago
  I would argue that the first statement is simply wrong. Jurors do not answer legal questions at all. They answer questions of fact.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    There are cases where the jury has to choose one of several charges if they find the defendant guilty, e.g. second- or first-degree murder. In those cases, the jury instructions are pretty specific about the differences between the charges, but that does not eliminate confusion entirely.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  If the laws are such that the average jury simply cannot understand them, even with briefing from the judge or someone competent to do so, perhaps the solution is to make laws such that the normal person can understand and follow the laws - and thus, be qualified for jury duty. Naturally, some laws will need explained simply because folks never come in need of that law. Some accounting laws, for example, would need explained to non-accountants. Explaining the difference between the different levels of murder could need explained because most of us aren't murdering folks. But it seems that should be well within the confines of the system. >Only a guilty person would desire a jury This would simply depend on the honesty of the system. If you are wrongly accused and offered a plea deal, you might wind up going to trial if you have a non-guilty plea. Theoretically there wouldn't be enough evidence to prosecute you, but those cases make it through nonetheless. Plus there are charges such as "visiting a common nuisance" that are difficult for folks to disprove. visiting a common nuisance is generally visiting a drug dealer or other such location, regardless of your knowledge of what was going on
kiba 10y ago
I question the ability of average people to evaluate arguments and think critically.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  I second the question of their ability to evacuate arguments :)
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  The jury isn't there to interpret the law - plenty of people in the room doing that already. Juries are there to inject mercy. That's why they must be a 'jury of peers' - so they understand why and can intervene with mercy if necessary.
  - kiba 10y ago
    The jury isn't there to interpret the law - plenty of people in the room doing that already. Juries are there to inject mercy. I don't buy that they will inject mercy, especially if they thought about irrelevant factors to determine guilt or innocence. Juries are unpredictable. Does that mean that they made good judgement or that they are swayed by good-sounding arguments?
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      They are supposed to know about the situation the poor slob is in, and take that into consideration. Which the letter of the law can't do.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Juries are instructed to determine the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereby determine the verdict. Mercy is not part of jury instructions. A jury would be a pretty blunt instrument in the delivery of mercy, because they don't control sentencing, but only the verdict. All the jury can say is "guilty" or "not guilty" -- not something like "guilty, but give the guy a merciful sentence because of mitigating factors."
csydas 10y ago
Forgive me for basis a lot of my argument off a single comic/link, but this comic blog from a lawyer helps explain why the Jury system is very much so a problem (mildly long read): http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/16202923895/interlude-the-jury http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/16202923895/interlu... In short, you're asking jurors to take on a huge responsibility with little to no understanding of the laws they're being expected to make a decision on. In virtually every instance the jurors are left in a completely uneducated state and unable to give any proper assessment, relying basically on whatever cues they decide to pick up on instead of factual evidence. The idea of 12 Angry Men never really existed with juries and was far outside the scope of what a juror is really supposed to be doing.
- refurb 10y ago
  That comic doesn't reflect my experience in the least. I was allowed to take notes (the judge did warn the jurors not to let note taking distract you). Yes, the instructions from the judge did take an hour, but I was given a copy of the instructions for deliberations. The instructions are also written by a panel of judges/lawyers so they are very methodical and logical. "In order to be convicted of murder, you must find at least one (1) of the following to be true:....". We had testimony re-read by the reporter and all the physical evidence was just given to us to rifle through. We could replay videos, etc. Sure it's not perfect, but it's life. What in life is perfect?
- DINKDINK 10y ago
  IANAL but unless criminal and civil trial instructions for juries are drastically different, there are several inaccuracies in that comment at least for juries in California. -Juries are allowed to take notes. -Juries are allowed to submit questions, that are reviewed for approval by both sides' lawyers and the judge. -Juries do get a copy of the law they need to determine was violated
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > IANAL but unless criminal and civil trial instructions for juries are drastically different Criminal and civil trial instructions for juries are drastically different. Heck, trial instructions for different issues within either domain can be drastically different, too.
maxxxxx 10y ago
I was part of a jury earlier this year and my problem was that the defense and the prosecution made several mistakes and didn't explain things well. As jury you are supposed to only take into account what has been presented during the trial. You can't for example ask a lawyer to clarify an issue. This makes the system very vulnerable to bad representation. If a lawyer is obviously bad the jury can't do anything but sit and listen.
- ewjordan 10y ago
  The solution to that is pretty simple: vote not guilty, and refuse to budge. If you need any clarification, the prosecution has not done their job. In a criminal trial, you're not there to figure out what happened, you're there to judge whether it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Whether the defense or prosecution made mistakes, if you're left with a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (and I personally consider it the case that inept defense can cause reasonable doubt, unless the prosecution presents an airtight case - a lot of people, including most of my lawyer friends, would disagree with me there), don't vote to convict.
  - phil21 10y ago
    If the jury is comprised of HN readers, you'd be correct. They are not. And it's on purpose that they are not. That is my main problem with juries. Whatever they are, they are decidedly not a jury of my peers. They are people who are selected to be as dumb and open to suggestion as possible. Effectively a popularity contest between counsel. One day in a courtroom during jury selection should show any thinking individual that the whole process is a complete farce. Only the least capable (in general) end up on juries - and it's entirely by design.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Exactly. The default judgement is "not guilty". The burden is on the gov't to prove it's case. If the gov't fails to do so, either because they didn't explain things well or asked the wrong questions of witnesses, then you vote not guilty.

twblalock 10y ago

The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In many cases, the jury comprises 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. These aren't exactly my views, but they are common objections raised against juries.

ramblenode 10y ago
> only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. This can also be turned around to the benefit of the prosecutor. Prosecutors may pursue legally bogus charges if they are dealing with an unsympathetic defendant. Either way, juries are more susceptible to emotional appeals than legal experts--a bad thing when the law is just, but a good thing when the law is wrong.
- twblalock 10y ago
  I think you'll find that juries will convict even when the law is unjust. Jury nullification is probably not very widespread, despite beliefs to the contrary.
bdhess 10y ago
> The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In the jury system, juries are charged with answering questions as to the facts, and judges are charged with answering questions as to the law. It makes full use of the judge's expertise in the law as well as a small sample of society's expertise in human nature and the human experience. > Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Or put another way, someone who is technically guilty, but under circumstances where conviction of the technical violation would be unconscionable. > Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. Without getting into the merits of the obviously subjective argument here, it's not clear that the conclusion follows even if we grant the assumption. The superior justice system of a non-jury country might be perfected yet further by introducing juries.
- makomk 10y ago
  The textbook explanation of juries is that they answer questions of fact and the judge answers questions of law, but that's fairly obviously not what they're doing in practice. Juries are required to hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, which means that they need to understand all the gnarly and difficult parts of the law and how it applies to the facts at hand. You can find an, errm, interesting explanation here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299
curried_haskell 10y ago
I would argue that the first statement is simply wrong. Jurors do not answer legal questions at all. They answer questions of fact.
- twblalock 10y ago
  There are cases where the jury has to choose one of several charges if they find the defendant guilty, e.g. second- or first-degree murder. In those cases, the jury instructions are pretty specific about the differences between the charges, but that does not eliminate confusion entirely.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
If the laws are such that the average jury simply cannot understand them, even with briefing from the judge or someone competent to do so, perhaps the solution is to make laws such that the normal person can understand and follow the laws - and thus, be qualified for jury duty. Naturally, some laws will need explained simply because folks never come in need of that law. Some accounting laws, for example, would need explained to non-accountants. Explaining the difference between the different levels of murder could need explained because most of us aren't murdering folks. But it seems that should be well within the confines of the system. >Only a guilty person would desire a jury This would simply depend on the honesty of the system. If you are wrongly accused and offered a plea deal, you might wind up going to trial if you have a non-guilty plea. Theoretically there wouldn't be enough evidence to prosecute you, but those cases make it through nonetheless. Plus there are charges such as "visiting a common nuisance" that are difficult for folks to disprove. visiting a common nuisance is generally visiting a drug dealer or other such location, regardless of your knowledge of what was going on

kiba 10y ago

I question the ability of average people to evaluate arguments and think critically.

acjohnson55 10y ago
I second the question of their ability to evacuate arguments :)
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
The jury isn't there to interpret the law - plenty of people in the room doing that already. Juries are there to inject mercy. That's why they must be a 'jury of peers' - so they understand why and can intervene with mercy if necessary.
- kiba 10y ago
  The jury isn't there to interpret the law - plenty of people in the room doing that already. Juries are there to inject mercy. I don't buy that they will inject mercy, especially if they thought about irrelevant factors to determine guilt or innocence. Juries are unpredictable. Does that mean that they made good judgement or that they are swayed by good-sounding arguments?
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    They are supposed to know about the situation the poor slob is in, and take that into consideration. Which the letter of the law can't do.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Juries are instructed to determine the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereby determine the verdict. Mercy is not part of jury instructions. A jury would be a pretty blunt instrument in the delivery of mercy, because they don't control sentencing, but only the verdict. All the jury can say is "guilty" or "not guilty" -- not something like "guilty, but give the guy a merciful sentence because of mitigating factors."

csydas 10y ago

Forgive me for basis a lot of my argument off a single comic/link, but this comic blog from a lawyer helps explain why the Jury system is very much so a problem (mildly long read): http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/16202923895/interlude-the-jury http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/16202923895/interlu... In short, you're asking jurors to take on a huge responsibility with little to no understanding of the laws they're being expected to make a decision on. In virtually every instance the jurors are left in a completely uneducated state and unable to give any proper assessment, relying basically on whatever cues they decide to pick up on instead of factual evidence. The idea of 12 Angry Men never really existed with juries and was far outside the scope of what a juror is really supposed to be doing.

refurb 10y ago
That comic doesn't reflect my experience in the least. I was allowed to take notes (the judge did warn the jurors not to let note taking distract you). Yes, the instructions from the judge did take an hour, but I was given a copy of the instructions for deliberations. The instructions are also written by a panel of judges/lawyers so they are very methodical and logical. "In order to be convicted of murder, you must find at least one (1) of the following to be true:....". We had testimony re-read by the reporter and all the physical evidence was just given to us to rifle through. We could replay videos, etc. Sure it's not perfect, but it's life. What in life is perfect?
DINKDINK 10y ago
IANAL but unless criminal and civil trial instructions for juries are drastically different, there are several inaccuracies in that comment at least for juries in California. -Juries are allowed to take notes. -Juries are allowed to submit questions, that are reviewed for approval by both sides' lawyers and the judge. -Juries do get a copy of the law they need to determine was violated
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > IANAL but unless criminal and civil trial instructions for juries are drastically different Criminal and civil trial instructions for juries are drastically different. Heck, trial instructions for different issues within either domain can be drastically different, too.

maxxxxx 10y ago

I was part of a jury earlier this year and my problem was that the defense and the prosecution made several mistakes and didn't explain things well. As jury you are supposed to only take into account what has been presented during the trial. You can't for example ask a lawyer to clarify an issue. This makes the system very vulnerable to bad representation. If a lawyer is obviously bad the jury can't do anything but sit and listen.

ewjordan 10y ago
The solution to that is pretty simple: vote not guilty, and refuse to budge. If you need any clarification, the prosecution has not done their job. In a criminal trial, you're not there to figure out what happened, you're there to judge whether it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Whether the defense or prosecution made mistakes, if you're left with a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (and I personally consider it the case that inept defense can cause reasonable doubt, unless the prosecution presents an airtight case - a lot of people, including most of my lawyer friends, would disagree with me there), don't vote to convict.
- phil21 10y ago
  If the jury is comprised of HN readers, you'd be correct. They are not. And it's on purpose that they are not. That is my main problem with juries. Whatever they are, they are decidedly not a jury of my peers. They are people who are selected to be as dumb and open to suggestion as possible. Effectively a popularity contest between counsel. One day in a courtroom during jury selection should show any thinking individual that the whole process is a complete farce. Only the least capable (in general) end up on juries - and it's entirely by design.
- refurb 10y ago
  Exactly. The default judgement is "not guilty". The burden is on the gov't to prove it's case. If the gov't fails to do so, either because they didn't explain things well or asked the wrong questions of witnesses, then you vote not guilty.