11 ms·

Very 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,

Very 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 ago
I 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 ago
Reduced amount of empathy for who? The victim of the crime, or the suspect that might be spending time in jail?
- John23832 10y ago
  A 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 ago
    don'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 ago
      I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. And yes, this applies solely to the situation I gave.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. What is the depth that makes it sound good?
        John23832 10y ago
        Because 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 ago
        Shorter: "logic is not the same as truth." Mundane corollary: "You can make a case for anything."
        goo 10y ago
        I 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 ago
      I 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 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. 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 ago
        Empathy 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 ago
    Oh - 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 ago
Or, 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Fairly certain the prosecution can't appeal innocence, right? Wouldn't that just entail being tried again?
  - manarth 10y ago
    From what I understand, it depends on jurisdiction. It's allowed in some countries.
geforce 10y ago
It 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 ago
After 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 ago
  While 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 ago
  Given 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 ago
I 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.

i80and 10y ago

I 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 ago

Reduced amount of empathy for who? The victim of the crime, or the suspect that might be spending time in jail?

John23832 10y ago
A 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 ago
  don'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 ago
    I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. And yes, this applies solely to the situation I gave.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      I know on the surface it sounds bad, but yea. What is the depth that makes it sound good?
      - John23832 10y ago
        Because 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 ago
        Shorter: "logic is not the same as truth." Mundane corollary: "You can make a case for anything."
      - goo 10y ago
        I 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 ago
    I 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 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. 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 ago
      Empathy 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 ago
  Oh - 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 ago

Or, 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 ago

I 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 ago

I 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 ago
Fairly certain the prosecution can't appeal innocence, right? Wouldn't that just entail being tried again?
- manarth 10y ago
  From what I understand, it depends on jurisdiction. It's allowed in some countries.

geforce 10y ago

It 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 ago

After 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 ago
While 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 ago
Given 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 ago

I 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.