5 ms·

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

by 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.
- hueving 10y ago
  There's a difference between moralizing and restricting a few particular tasks.
mikeash 10y ago
It's really interesting to see which attributes we consider to be a failing. Being drunk is considered much worse than being tired even at a similar level of effect. The one that I really love is how being unintelligent is often considered to be a failing, but only to a point. When someone does something stupid and there's a bad consequence, it's often met with "that's what they deserve, what an idiot!" But there's a sharp cutoff (officially at an IQ of 69 or below) where it ceases to be a moral failing and becomes a handicap worthy of sympathy.
- gdubs 10y ago
  Super insightful comment. We have an imperfect system, but what I think is good about it is that jurors are evaluated on their capacity to fairly and impartially decide a case. It sidesteps the need to base the qualification on metrics like IQ, or level of intoxication, etc, and places it in the hands of the lawyers and judges. Imperfect, and there are ways that lawyers exploit it, but IMHO it's ultimately more fair.

by gdubs 10y ago

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.

hueving 10y ago
There's a difference between moralizing and restricting a few particular tasks.

mikeash 10y ago

It's really interesting to see which attributes we consider to be a failing. Being drunk is considered much worse than being tired even at a similar level of effect. The one that I really love is how being unintelligent is often considered to be a failing, but only to a point. When someone does something stupid and there's a bad consequence, it's often met with "that's what they deserve, what an idiot!" But there's a sharp cutoff (officially at an IQ of 69 or below) where it ceases to be a moral failing and becomes a handicap worthy of sympathy.

gdubs 10y ago
Super insightful comment. We have an imperfect system, but what I think is good about it is that jurors are evaluated on their capacity to fairly and impartially decide a case. It sidesteps the need to base the qualification on metrics like IQ, or level of intoxication, etc, and places it in the hands of the lawyers and judges. Imperfect, and there are ways that lawyers exploit it, but IMHO it's ultimately more fair.