6 ms·

It 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

• chillindude829 10y ago
  How would this work in practice though? Would jurors take a breathalyzer or something before entering the courtroom?
  • rblatz 10y ago
    Potentially, 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 ago
      Prior 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 ago
        Alcoholism can interfere with that job.
      • cardiffspaceman 10y ago
        Jurors can comment on things like apparent misconduct, to the judge via the bailiff, or ask questions of the judge via the bailiff.
  • ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
    The way it works in most workplaces, if someone is obviously visibly impaired or reeks of booze.
• gdubs 10y ago
  Why moralize though? I'd rather have a brilliant, fair-minded, functioning alcoholic on a jury than a teetotaling nincompoop. Being on a substance isn't in and of itself a good marker of whether someone is capable of holding their position. Arguably lack of sleep might be as bad or worse as being drunk. But culturally we don't moralize about the former.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • tertius 10y ago
    Agreed about sleeping. That can be a major problem. Addiction is a really psychological issue though.
    • bdamm 10y ago
      PTSD is a psychological issue as well. So?
      • pavel_lishin 10y ago
        There is a part of the jury selection process where you are asked if there is any reason you think you cannot serve, and you're welcome to speak freely. Of course, it's up to the judge (and to a certain degree, the lawyers) as to whether you'll be released from service. I was up for jury duty recently, and one of the potential jury members flat out said that she couldn't be unbiased in the trial, since she'd been assaulted by a black man not too long before, and the defendant in the case was black as well. The judge released her back to the jury pool. I would assume that stating that you have PTSD (and having documentation to that effect) and explaining how it would prevent you from being able to serve would be a pretty good reason to not serve. (No idea about claiming alcoholism, and I'd wager that most people wouldn't want to announce to fifty people that they have a drinking problem.)
  • jdietrich 10y ago
    >But culturally we don't moralize about the former. That's starting to change. My country has nearly eliminated drink-driving, so driving while tired has become the big target. Medicine is starting to take the issue of sleep deprivation amongst practitioners seriously, with a lot of very frank discussions about the impacts of shift work and on-call rotas.
• mbrookes 10y ago
  > The Ouija board seems highly inappropriate, since I believe jurors are instructed to not use outside research Outside research? Do you genuinely believe they consulted the the spirit world? At most this this would surface their collective belief in the guilt of the accused. An unconventional means to arrive at a consensus, but no more outside research than each of them writing a verdict on a piece of paper.
  • Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    It's probably easier to make the "outside research" argument to the kind of person who would consult an Ouija board than it is to convince them Ouija boards are bunk.
  • BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    The validity of the research method should not be taken into account. It doesn't matter if I ask my uncle Bob about the scientific details or if I go read some peer reviewed published paper. I'm not allowed to gain knowledge. That being said, I still find it absurd that independent research from valid sources isn't allowed.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      > That being said, I still find it absurd that independent research from valid sources isn't allowed. It's not allowed, among many reasons, because validity is a disputable fact, and outside research by jurors prevents the party that would be adversely affected by taking the source as valid from contesting the validity of the source in open court, defeating the entire purpose of having a public trial, a reviewable trial record, the right to counsel, and, well, the whole of legal process.
      • BearGoesChirp 10y ago
        If the court provided a meaningful alternative I might accept this argument, but given some of the poor track records of expert witnesses, and given that people will bring in their own personal knowledge regardless of what is said. This is especially true since contesting validity of a source costs money and people don't have infinite money in court. The only conclusion is that the current legal system is so broken that the only reasonable judgment is not guilty.
• mbrookes 10y ago
  > The Ouija board seems highly inappropriate, since I believe jurors are instructed to not use outside research Outside research? Do you genuinely believe they consulted the spirit world? At most this this would surface their collective belief in the guilt of the accused. An unconventional means to arrive at a consensus, but no more outside research than each of them writing a verdict on a piece of paper.
  • mikeash 10y ago
    A Ouija board wouldn't constitute outside research, but if they believed in it then it would mean they thought they were conducting outside research, which they were not supposed to do. How do you handle that?
    • pavel_lishin 10y ago
      If I consulted what I believed to be a reputable website for information, not being aware that it contained nothing but plausible but randomly generated information, I think I would still be considered to be conducting outside research. I'd imagine that intent here matters.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        Intent definitely matters, but I think there has to be the possibility of achieving your goal too. For example, if I cast a spell that's said to make your heart explode, I won't get done for attempted murder even though my intent was to kill you.
  • hamandcheese 10y ago
    Suppose one juror in particular was influencing the Ouija board, and the rest actually believed they were communicating with the supernatural. That one juror now has an outsized impact on the trial, which is a problem.
    • sqeaky 10y ago
      Clever people taking advantage of dumb people has always been a problem.