4 ms·

Ignoring the idea of a corporation being judged by other corporations, the idea that "peers" should be judged more strictly (i.e., limited to "people in similar

Ignoring the idea of a corporation being judged by other corporations, the idea that "peers" should be judged more strictly (i.e., limited to "people in similar situations" monetarily, professionally, etc.), I feel like you would run a very clear risk of creating juries that function similarly to "good-old-boy networks" that are unwilling to judge too harshly.

cannonpr 10y ago
This risk is very evident in medical review boards for doctors and several similar boards for lawyers and judges across various countries.
afthonos 10y ago
That's the whole (original) point though. Historically, people would be taken away from people who had known them all their lives, be accused of something fantastical, and be condemned on the strength of he-said, she-said. In the specific case of the USA, a big complaint of colonists is that they would be whisked back to England for trial ("For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:") Peers are supposed to know you, your character, and your history. It's the only hope you have of being truly considered innocent until proven guilty. The default situation of a juror should be "I can't believe they did it; convince me", not "I have no idea". More important, if a jury starts at "I have no idea", they're realistically starting at "this person wouldn't be here if they hadn't done something; they're probably guilty".
- notahacker 10y ago
  Historically, English juries have ranged from 12 people selected by the defendant to swear his innocence to 12 people claiming to have knowledge of the crime charged with investigating it. There's a reason that we've abandoned the pretence that preconceived opinions about a person's likelihood of committing the crime (and significant potential to gain or lose from returning a particular verdict) are an improvement in the fairness of the trial and retain juries only because they're not part of the state apparatus.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    > There's a reason that we've abandoned the pretence that preconceived opinions about a person's likelihood of committing the crime What is the reason?
- dpark 10y ago
  > Peers are supposed to know you, your character, and your history. I don't think so. It's one thing to say that juries should be made of private citizens drawn from your nation/state/town. It's another thing entirely to say that juries should be made up of your buddies. Peer is not a synonym for neighbor. It means "equal".
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    They are just as supposed to know the victim, their character, and their history. There's no reason to suppose that a "close peer" jury would favor the defendant, it's just as likely to be the other way around.
    - dpark 10y ago
      On what is the claim that the jury is supposed to know any party based on? Edit: To be clear, I agree with your premise that knowing the defendant does not necessarily bias a jury in favor of the defendant. I don't think there's any reason to assume the jury should have any knowledge of anyone, though. In fact if you do, you'll probably get removed from the jury.
  - afthonos 10y ago
    Note that each level you've selected makes it more likely that they're sympathetic to you. Nation: shared culture. State: shared local culture. Town: shared understanding of what's considered acceptable here. There's of course a balance to be struck, and mobs will turn on people in an instant anyway. I'm merely saying that "peers" did not originally mean "random fellow humans"; it implied a level of connection above that. Personally, though, I think we've idealized the "impartial" jury too much—mostly because I don't believe there's such a thing.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > Note that each level you've selected makes it more likely that they're sympathetic to you. Nation: shared culture. State: shared local culture. Town: shared understanding of what's considered acceptable here Is that true? What if everyone in your town thinks you're kind of a jerk?
RileyJames 10y ago
Wouldn't a combination of both balance that issue?
rayiner 10y ago
Yes, a suit for fraud against a bank would have to have a jury composed of bankers, etc.
emodendroket 10y ago
That's a good point and probably illustrated by, say, the Jim Crow South.

cannonpr 10y ago

This risk is very evident in medical review boards for doctors and several similar boards for lawyers and judges across various countries.

afthonos 10y ago

That's the whole (original) point though. Historically, people would be taken away from people who had known them all their lives, be accused of something fantastical, and be condemned on the strength of he-said, she-said. In the specific case of the USA, a big complaint of colonists is that they would be whisked back to England for trial ("For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:") Peers are supposed to know you, your character, and your history. It's the only hope you have of being truly considered innocent until proven guilty. The default situation of a juror should be "I can't believe they did it; convince me", not "I have no idea". More important, if a jury starts at "I have no idea", they're realistically starting at "this person wouldn't be here if they hadn't done something; they're probably guilty".

notahacker 10y ago
Historically, English juries have ranged from 12 people selected by the defendant to swear his innocence to 12 people claiming to have knowledge of the crime charged with investigating it. There's a reason that we've abandoned the pretence that preconceived opinions about a person's likelihood of committing the crime (and significant potential to gain or lose from returning a particular verdict) are an improvement in the fairness of the trial and retain juries only because they're not part of the state apparatus.
- true_religion 10y ago
  > There's a reason that we've abandoned the pretence that preconceived opinions about a person's likelihood of committing the crime What is the reason?
dpark 10y ago
> Peers are supposed to know you, your character, and your history. I don't think so. It's one thing to say that juries should be made of private citizens drawn from your nation/state/town. It's another thing entirely to say that juries should be made up of your buddies. Peer is not a synonym for neighbor. It means "equal".
- PeterisP 10y ago
  They are just as supposed to know the victim, their character, and their history. There's no reason to suppose that a "close peer" jury would favor the defendant, it's just as likely to be the other way around.
  - dpark 10y ago
    On what is the claim that the jury is supposed to know any party based on? Edit: To be clear, I agree with your premise that knowing the defendant does not necessarily bias a jury in favor of the defendant. I don't think there's any reason to assume the jury should have any knowledge of anyone, though. In fact if you do, you'll probably get removed from the jury.
- afthonos 10y ago
  Note that each level you've selected makes it more likely that they're sympathetic to you. Nation: shared culture. State: shared local culture. Town: shared understanding of what's considered acceptable here. There's of course a balance to be struck, and mobs will turn on people in an instant anyway. I'm merely saying that "peers" did not originally mean "random fellow humans"; it implied a level of connection above that. Personally, though, I think we've idealized the "impartial" jury too much—mostly because I don't believe there's such a thing.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > Note that each level you've selected makes it more likely that they're sympathetic to you. Nation: shared culture. State: shared local culture. Town: shared understanding of what's considered acceptable here Is that true? What if everyone in your town thinks you're kind of a jerk?

RileyJames 10y ago

Wouldn't a combination of both balance that issue?

rayiner 10y ago

Yes, a suit for fraud against a bank would have to have a jury composed of bankers, etc.

emodendroket 10y ago

That's a good point and probably illustrated by, say, the Jim Crow South.