9 ms·
Drinking While Jurying
- darkerside 10y agoVery anecdotal, but I find it interesting that all cases resulted in a conviction. I'd wager that a drinking jury tends to exhibit a reduced amount of empathy, resulting in more guilty convictions than you'd otherwise find.
- i80and 10y agoI think it is obligatory here to mention that judges tend to hand out more lenient sentences right after lunch[1]. The justice system is quite sensitive to things like this, and frankly I'm surprised that jurors are ever allowed to drink. [1]: http://www.economist.com/node/18557594 http://www.economist.com/node/18557594
- tsomctl 10y agoReduced amount of empathy for who? The victim of the crime, or the suspect that might be spending time in jail?
- John23832 10y agoA judge/jury should never involve empathy for the victim, imo. Empathy for the victim should be baked into sentencing guidelines. Though I guess you could say the same about the perp. Eh... don't practice any empathy. Practice rationality and common sense.
- rhizome 10y agodon't practice any empathy Seriously? At the very least I hope you're only narrowly applying this to the jury system, but even then...
- John23832 10y agoI know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. And yes, this applies solely to the situation I gave.
- rhizome 10y agoI know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. What is the depth that makes it sound good?
- John23832 10y agoBecause people often think that acting rationally and empathetically are two distinct actions, and that's not the case. For example, someone gets caught with some crumbs of weed. You could make the empathetic argument for fining that person rather than jail time because, "They're not hurting anyone. It's just a little weed.", so on and so forth. Or you could make the logical/rational argument that the punishment and what stems from it (housing a person in jail, the economic aspects of ruining this person's life for what really is a victimless crime) does not fit the crime.
- rhizome 10y agoShorter: "logic is not the same as truth." Mundane corollary: "You can make a case for anything."
- goo 10y agoI know how excited we all are to board the moral outrage train, but there's an actual answer to that: http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-science-compassion-paul-bloom http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-...
- gnicholas 10y agoI don't particularly agree with him, but Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom wrote a book called Against Empathy [1]. I think his definition of empathy is narrower than what many people think of when they think of empathy, so in some ways his argument struck me as a battle against a straw man. But TBH I haven't read the whole book (just coverage of it, and some of his related work). There's a counterpoint here [2]. 1: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/paul-bloom-makes-a-weirdly-convincing-anti-empathy-argument.html http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/paul-bloom-makes-a-weir... 2: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201310/why-paul-bloom-is-wrong-about-empathy-and-morality https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201310/wh...
- logfromblammo 10y agoThat pushes the burden of having empathy for anyone onto the legislature writing the laws. And they decide for all cases, independent of potentially mitigating factors. As I personally believe that a legislature is a juicy target for sociopaths seeking power and impunity, and therefore likely to demonstrate less empathy than the general population, I'd rather leave the cold rationality for writing the laws, and the empathy for interpreting them in a just manner. Practice rationality in determining the facts of the case. Practice empathy in deciding whether to convict or acquit, and in the sentencing for the convicted. Cold rationality is how Jean Valjean gets 20 years in the galleys for stealing bread.
- John23832 10y ago>That pushes the burden of having empathy for anyone onto the legislature writing the laws. And they decide for all cases, independent of potentially mitigating factors. The legislature is supposed to be burdened with this. Empathy for the people living with us is the reason why we all left the wild and came together in the first place. > Practice rationality in determining the facts of the case. Practice empathy in deciding whether to convict or acquit, and in the sentencing for the convicted. I think I disagree. Once we've come to the facts of the case, with the proper (empathetic) laws, it just becomes a matter of execution (no pun intended). >Cold rationality is how Jean Valjean gets 20 years in the galleys for stealing bread. Don't think what you're saying is falling on deaf ears. I definitely get it. I'm a black man in the US. I know what strict mandatory minimums and culturally deaf laws do to people. However, I think that if we fix the laws, the rest shakes out.
- manarth 10y agoEmpathy for the people living with us is the reason why we all left the wild Archaeological records indicate empathy amongst neanderthals [1]. It's been with us a while. [1] http://www.evoanth.net/2012/04/26/caring-neanderthals/ http://www.evoanth.net/2012/04/26/caring-neanderthals/
- John23832 10y ago
- allengeorge 10y agoOh - of course. Which reminds me of this quote by Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread"
- redthrowaway 10y agoOr, rather, that a conviction is much more likely to go to appeal than an acquittal, and "the jurors were drunk" is the sort of thing the defence might reach for when they can't identity a miscarriage of justice in the trial itself.
- rblatz 10y agoI think it's because not guilty verdicts cannot be appealed by the prosecution due to double jeopardy. So there would be no examples of cases of a drunk/under the influence jury that resulted in not guilty verdicts being appealed for juror misconduct.
- manarth 10y agoI find it interesting that all cases resulted in a conviction. I wonder whether that might be related to the fact that all of these are cases that went to appeal. I'd assume that convictions were more often appealed than findings of innocence, but I have absolutely nothing more than blind faith to assume that, so corrections most welcome.
- twinkletwinkle 10y agoFairly certain the prosecution can't appeal innocence, right? Wouldn't that just entail being tried again?
- manarth 10y agoFrom what I understand, it depends on jurisdiction. It's allowed in some countries.
- geforce 10y agoIt seems like many substance alter empathy towards others. I remember that acetaminophen was found to reduce empathy. What other common substance would affect the jury that we don't know of yet?
- Nelson69 10y agoAfter 14 weeks? I'd side on which ever side was going to prevail with my vote. I think I'd just want it to be over and get back to repairing the damage to my life that 14 weeks on a jury inflicted.
- turnip123942 10y agoWhile I can understand your sentiment, but that is a really horrible use of one of your most powerful rights as a citizen. It may not change the course of history, but it certainly can change the course of another human being's life.
- saghm 10y agoGiven that you can understand how being stuck on a jury for weeks would be an unpleasant experience, it's somewhat incredible to me that you'd be willing to vote to put someone somewhere much worse than a jury for a much longer period of time regardless of whether you thought they were guilty just so you could get out of there faster.
- cm2187 10y agoI think the reality of criminal court cases is that in the vast majority of cases the defendant is clearly and unambiguously guilty. Most criminals aren't smart and aren't covering their tracks. Thanks god the legal system doesn't need to rely on some really smart Lieutenant Columbo to figure out who's done it. Of course there are some more difficult cases but if you pick 10 randomly, you are unlikely to find one. I suspect most juries mostly deliberate about the degree of implications, mitigating circumstances and the severity of the sentencing.
- protomyth 10y ago"concluded there was a real danger that what occurred during this misguided ouija session may have influenced some jurors." I get the feel a whole article could be done on "Regina v. Young (Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 1994)". I somehow think the drinking was just the beginning of a series of problems.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago> I get the feel a whole article could be done on "Regina v. Young (Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 1994)". I'm eagerly awaiting the horror movie version.
- jrockway 10y agoI wonder if the same applies to sleep deprivation. Some people don't really do well at the hours required of jury service, one wonders if they are making an important decision with the right level of mental capacity in that case.
- nervoustwit 10y agoArguably deliberating while being drink deprived could result in hasty judgement. Stress, like sleep deprivation, is bound to affect your decision making abilities. Everything in moderation, of course.
- rblatz 10y agoIt seems like a sensible line would be, not being under the influence while in court. Additionally not being hungover in court. If you are drinking or hungover you are unable to properly focus on your tasks as a juror. Additionally limiting discussions of the case with other jurors while drinking seems like a good idea. The Ouija board seems highly inappropriate, since I believe jurors are instructed to not use outside research or experiences in rendering a verdict. Outside of that these are adults, and the should not lose all agency because they've been picked to serve on a jury.
- chillindude829 10y agoHow would this work in practice though? Would jurors take a breathalyzer or something before entering the courtroom?
- rblatz 10y agoPotentially, or if someone is visibly unable to perform their duties as a juror the judge would stop proceedings, investigate the issue with the juror and then take whatever action they find appropriate.
- michaelt 10y agoPrior to deliberation, isn't a juror's main job to sit still in silence?
- edmccard 10y ago>Prior to deliberation, isn't a juror's main job to sit still in silence I think they're also supposed to be paying attention to the proceedings.
- zardo 10y agoAlcoholism can interfere with that job.
- cardiffspaceman 10y ago
- revelation 10y agoJuries are one of those things you can write a good book about or have one of those tearful movies where the normal folk come through to make justice prevail in face of an evil prosecutor and police. But the reality isn't that rosy. The sample size is far too small, and worst of all, juries amplify biases in the system. It's like inverting a matrix, great for a math proof but you never do that in practice. Just take this writeup on a case in Britain: http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict She just straight rammed into the cyclist from behind. No braking, didn't even stop. But a jury of very likely overwhelmingly drivers have no problem to acquit when there is even the slightest hint of "hey, this could be something that might happen to me!".
- 5_minutes 10y agoLet's not forget that, many historical (political, war,...) moments in mankind, were heavily influenced by alcohol, or other influencing attributes. I just want to say that it's more part of life then one assumes. If someone is on Prozac (hey is that okay then?) or someone has a hangover? Or someone who hasn't slept much? Or someone who is on a fast? There is no normality. The norms of society is the goal, or the barometer, but basically we're all just trying to get by.
- techbio 10y agoReadable for at least this line: "Summary: This case may well be the benchmark for jury bacchanalia."
- techbio 10y agoEdit: 5-4 w/dissent from Justice Marshall
- t0mbstone 10y agoWhat in the world does this have to do with hacking news?
- jwilk 10y agoFrom the HN guidelines: On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Also: Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link.