10 ms·
In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things
by austenallred 9y ago
In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things
- charlesdm 9y agoWhich, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a jury. Edit: and for those voting me down, at least explain why you don't agree.
- dclowd9901 9y agoExcept, of course, this has a natural side-effect of incentivizing people to not be assholes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- JackFr 9y ago> People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts is evidence that the jury made a determination based on facts, rather than their feeling towards him. That being said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and the jury determines the facts, especially as they pertain to the credibility of testimony. If the defendant is an outrageous asshole, it's possibly more likely that the jury would interpret inconclusive evidence less favorably. I don't think that's necessarily the worst thing in the world, and it's also not clear that a panel of judges wouldn't be subject to similar biases.
- SilasX 9y ago>He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. Well, yes and no. They only bothered looking for his other crimes and prosecuting his because he became unpopular. That's disturbing. What if I'm the victim of financial crimes by someone who didn't piss of Congress and the public? Where's my justice?
- andrewflnr 9y agoThe judicial system mostly prosecutes people who have not managed to piss off Congress and the public.
- SilasX 9y agoThe point is that the bad reasons disproportionately affect their decision of which cases to pursue.
- JackFr 9y agoWell, maybe. Shkreli was first investigated by the SEC in 2003, and had two multimillion dollar judgements against his two bankrupt hedge funds for failing to cover puts and short sales. So when he shows up running a new company, it's not unimaginable that he was on some people's radar.
- XorNot 9y agoThe solution to your problems is not found in questioning why one set of crimes which occurred was correctly prosecuted.
- lr4444lr 9y agoAgreed, but I question how smart Shkreli could be if he did not opt for a bench trial given his reputation.
- sliverstorm 9y agoWhether it's right or wrong, you don't earn the benefit of the doubt in tenuous cases by being a huge asshole.
- chrischen 9y agoPeople can’t grasp complex matters and lawyers specifically choose the least intelligent easiest to sway and manipulate people to serve on juries.
- emodendroket 9y agoThen I guess it is fortunate that neither the defense nor the prosecution get to just select whichever jurors they want without input from the other side.
- dgacmu 9y agoThat's the kind of claim for which it's useful to have a citation. Because it's not generally true. This is an old study ('76), but they found that the jury selection processes biases against both high and low educational attainment, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... One of my friends just served on the jury for a murder trial. He's got a Ph.D.. From my recollection, at least two of the other jurors also had postgraduate degrees. Remember that the jury selection process is managed jointly -- which somewhat naturally leads to the clipping off of people at either end of the extremes that the defense and prosecution are concerned about.
- austenallred 9y agoYou're not wrong. Humans are fallible and thus so are jury trials.
- emodendroket 9y agoBut judges are infallible and thus so are bench trials?
- austenallred 9y agoUm no one said or even implied either of those things
- emodendroket 9y agoIt does seem to be implied if you are invoking human fallibility to bolster an argument that jury trials are bad.
- austenallred 9y agoHow does jury trials being imperfect imply that bench trials are perfect? A being true does not mean B is false...
- emodendroket 9y agoThe OP was saying that bench trials are much better, not just that jury trials are flawed.
- austenallred 9y agobetter != perfect
- emodendroket 9y agoOK, so the argument is that regular people are... more fallible than a judge? I don't understand what you want to say at this point.
- elliotec 9y agoIt's a check/balance against state power, i.e. the judicial system. Many countries have used this method for centuries. It's not ridiculous because the idea is that (the diverse selection of) your peers are equal to you in most ways, so are able to fairly judge you. A judge still has a lot of power and usually ultimately the decision goes to them as far as sentencing etc.
- charlesdm 9y agoRight. But thing is, they are not actually equal on specialised matters? I understand that it works when you're dealing with things like murder. That can be relatively clear. But how about hacking? Securities fraud? Money laundering? Tax fraud? These are all highly specialised issues that the average person knows nothing about. No average person, unless they have an interest in it, will be able to make a good call on such a case.
- emodendroket 9y agoThe judge/jury distinction is basically orthogonal. Judges who hear a case are not necessarily experts. And by the same token, one could easily imagine a system where a jury had to be composed of experts in the field. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing to do, though.
- _delirium 9y agoThere is a significant role for judges in trials as well, especially on complex technical issues. It's up to the judge to decide all "matters of law", for example which conduct would (if it happened) violate a law and which wouldn't. A judge can even throw out the indictment entirely, finding a defendant innocent as a matter of law, if they determine that the conduct alleged isn't actually a violation of any laws, even if it did happen. In complex fraud cases indictments being thrown out (or overturned on appeal) by judges isn't all that uncommon either. Where it goes to a jury is when there's a dispute of fact rather than law: the judge has determined that whether the defendant violated the law or not depends on a fact disputed between the prosecution and the defense (e.g. whether the defendant actually did or didn't do something, or what the defendant's intent was). The jury then decides whether the facts support conviction, although even then they're typically guided by very specific instructions from the judge about what they would have to find in order to convict.
- emodendroket 9y agoRelying exclusively on bench trials seems unappealing to me (and I guess to James Madison, who enshrined the right of trial by jury in the Constitution) because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might have. Clearly the US system is far from perfect but I don't think getting rid of juries would make it better. Also, in practice, judges make rulings on things outside their expertise too.
- watwut 9y ago"because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might have." Practically, united states of america have biggest incarceration rate in the world, one of the most expensive legal systems (if not most expensive) and quite long sentences compared to other western countries. Jury nullification is basically never used and majority of jury members don't know about it. I am not saying that other countries have flawless awesome court system, definitely not. But I have yet to read something that would convince me that jury is better or at least worth additional expenses.
- emodendroket 9y agoAnd you think getting rid of juries would help, or at least not make things worse? One of the reasons it's so high is that most cases are resolved as part of the plea system and never go to trial.
- charlesdm 9y agoIsn't the main issue with a jury that is inherently unpredictable, and some people would prefer taking a decent plea over a bad verdict? People that aren't guilty shouldn't be forced to take a plea because the alternative could be worse. That is just wrong in every single way.
- watwut 9y agoThis is one of those cases where those doing downvoting really should explain why they downvote. I personally agree with following: * Defendant being dick or unpleasant should not affect guilty/not guilty verdict in fair justice system. * Defendant being charismatic or seemingly intelligent should not affect guilty/not guilty verdict in fair justice system either. * A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a jury.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sampo 9y ago> A panel of judges with specialised experience often makes a lot more sense than a jury. This would make sense in a country where trust in authorities is high, and people generally believe that the judges and the justice system is impartial and fair, without too much personal and hidden agendas. But in a country where the trust in the system is lower, a jury of peers provides a safety mechanism so that the justice system cannot diverge too far from the point of view of the "common man".
- anigbrowl 9y agoA jury trial is a privilege which defendants can choose to waive.
- coldtea 9y ago>Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). Why not? This is basically what the law does as well: codifies what society considers punishable assholery (e.g. murdering people or stealing or etc...). So convicting him because he has been as asshole (even if it's in an unrelated case) is not that different to convicting him for being guilt on this or that legally defined behavior -- it's just not written down in a law book.
- mcappleton 9y agoFirst, a judge can usually give a "directed verdict" of the person is obviously innocent. Secondly it is much easier to pay off a judge and keep it quiet than a bunch of random jurors. Thirdly judges can become calloused by virtue of their continued sentencing people to prison. They won't have the empathy that the jury will feel for both the accuser and the accused. Fourth, the jury can ignore an outrageous law. For example oftentimes they refused to convict escaped slaves in the north. Putting your freedom in the hands of one person who may very well be corrupt is much more dangerous than puttIng it in the hands of regular people. Additionally I can't remember where, but I heard that 10 people or so working together usually come up with as good a solution as an expert anyways.
- Retra 9y agoThe "jury of your peers" exists to provide a contextual moral component to the law. If your peers think you did no wrong, it doesn't matter what the letter of the law says: a crime that is justifiable to society deserves no punishment. Conversely, if what you've done is not justifiable to society, you should be punished for it even if it is not a crime. The easiest way to understand this is when first-mover advantages run amok. If you're the first person to think of some dastardly evil, you should not be permitted to do it just because nobody has yet written a law prohibiting it. Like, say, the Coca-Cola Corporation is not innocent for putting addictive substances in their drinks simply because it wasn't illegal at the time. And Shkreli's price gouging doesn't sit well with anybody either. A person's ignorance about some harm does not constitute permission to commit that harm against them. >When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? The defendant has an attorney whose job it is to explain these matters to the jury.