9 ms·
The ethical thing to do here, if asked whether you will treat the word of a law enforcement officer as always true, is to lie. It's along the lines of jury nul
by phyzome 9y ago
The ethical thing to do here, if asked whether you will treat the word of a law enforcement officer as always true, is to lie.
It's along the lines of jury nullification. The people have some recourse in overriding court rules and court rulings when the court is not behaving in accordance with justice.
- mulmen 9y agoHow is that not perjury?
- tytytytytytytyt 9y agoMaybe it's chaotic good.
- phyzome 9y agoIf perjury may save an innocent person's life, by god, I will perjure. I have great respect for most parts of our justice system. This is not one of those parts, therefore I choose civil disobedience.
- gknoy 9y agoAren't jurors sworn to tell the truth when making such statements?
- mulmen 9y agoIn my experience yes, they are.
- Mithaldu 9y agoWait, really? Jurors have to swear to always treat law enforcement word as true, even if this entirely contradicts physical reality? Do they get punished if they say yes to that and somehow it becomes obvious they're not doing that?
- allannienhuis 9y agoThat's not what they said. They said that Jurors swore to tell the truth. Not sure how you interpreted it that way.
- Mithaldu 9y agoThe chain as i saw it: Jurors are asked if they will treat the word of law enforcement as always true. Jurors are disqualified if they don't say yes. Jurors are sworn, as you say, to tell the truth. Presumable jurors get punished if they end up acting counter to their previous word? Thus, jurors that end up on the bench are forced by law to act as if every word by law enforcement is true, even if it contradicts physical reality. No?
- aplusbi 9y agoDuring jury selection, the prosecutor and the defense attorney get to interview each potential juror. Both the prosecutor and the defense can eliminate potential jurors based on their answers. I believe they are allowed an unlimited number of challenges "for cause" and a limited number of challenges without cause. If a juror stated that they believed that the word of law enforcement were always true, the defense attorney would almost certainly challenge them for cause, as that is clear bias, and they would not be selected for the jury. In practice it's a balancing act, where the prosecution wants jurors who trust law enforcement and the defense wants jurors who are skeptical of law enforcement. It is illegal to punish a juror for the decision they make during a trial. This is often referred to as "jury nullification" (or rather, is an important part of jury nullification).
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Jurors are asked if they will treat the word of law enforcement as always true. Jurors are disqualified if they don't say yes. Realistically, jurors will instead be challenged for cause by the defense if they do say yes to that question. They might be challenged by the prosecution if they indicate a bias against police testimony (either for cause or as a peremptory challenge, depending on the details and the prosecutor and the judge.)
- kemayo 9y agoI have very worried feelings about anyone who can answer "yes" to a question like "will you treat the word of X as always true?", regardless of the value of X. The bare minimum I'd need would be "yes, so long as they're not contradicted by less inherently unreliable evidence than that which relies on human memory".
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoJust say "yes, provided that they aren't contradicted by more reliable evidence". The only thing you left out is that your definition of "more reliable evidence" is very broad.
- copperred 9y agoNope. Tell the truth. In my experience, the defense asked specific questions related to this exact topic and sought out jurors who agreed that police testimony is not guaranteed to be factual. I have to assume this is common. They had no problem filling the juror box with jurors approved by both sides.
- philipkglass 9y agoThe ethical thing to do here, if asked whether you will treat the word of a law enforcement officer as always true, is to lie. That question came up the last time I was called for jury duty. But it was the people who affirmed that they believe police are always truthful who were excluded.
- macawfish 9y agoYou don't need to lie, but you need to be careful not to frame your realistic skepticism as bias. Then, if you do make the jury, you need to be incredibly tactful so that the prosecutor doesn't get the trial thrown out on the basis that, e.g., you're biased simply because you don't take police testimonies as ground truth. The risk here is that there are people fighting to get out of prison for things they're not guilty of. If you have realistic expectations that police and their representative prosecutors can and do lie, please exercise caution.
- refurb 9y agoExactly. Saying "I will evaluate the officer's statements along with the other evidence produced to determine if his/her statements are factual" is not going to get you kicked off a jury. If you say "You shouldn't believe anything a cop testifies to" will get you booted pretty quickly.
- sitkack 9y ago> Saying "I will evaluate the officer's statements along with the other evidence produced to determine if his/her statements are factual" is not going to get you kicked off a jury. If you say this you won't be selected. Engineers and Scientists routinely get denied because of the application of logic.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- __david__ 9y agoI got to jury selection last time I was on jury duty and the prosecuting attorney straight up asked the prospective jurors, "would you believe the testimony of a policeman above the testimony of the plaintiff?" And guess which answer got people dismissed?
- mulmen 9y agoI don’t like guessing. It only reinforces bias. Please complete your anecdote.
- korethr 9y agoHaving been through voir dire, sat on a jury and been asked to hold the power to take a man's freedom, I don't consider it ethical to lie during voir dire. The whole premise of the trial is that the jury is impartial. To knowingly lie is to deliberately corrupt that. I wouldn't want to be tried by jurors that were wilfully dishonest; I cannot then in good conscience lie, or countenance my fellow jurors lying, imagined purity of motive be damned.
- nostrademons 9y ago"The whole premise of the trial is that the jury is impartial." There's no such thing as impartial. Unless you either have no emotions or have omniscient knowledge of everything (robot or God, basically), you'll always view a set of facts through an emotional lens that's been tinged by your past experiences, which are a tiny subset of everyone's past experiences. Part of the reason we put multiple people on a jury is to average out those differences. Then again, I brought up unconscious bias and implicit association tests last time I was called for jury duty, and was excused by a very impatient and skeptical sounding judge. Questioning the whole premise of the legal system doesn't go over very well with the legal system.
- taneq 9y agoIt's meant to be impartial /to the accused/. It's not meant to be completely agnostic of the whole judicial system, and in some cases doing the right thing may require not fully disclosing your knowledge of that judicial system. Example: Potential jurors will be dismissed (or at least, so I've read) if they admit to knowledge of jury nullification, despite it being a legitimate part of the jury's powers.
- ncallaway 9y agoIt is a part of the jury's power, but more as a side-effect of other decisions. The criminal justice system _does not think_ jury nullification is a legitimate use of the powers of a juror. Rather, the criminal justice system more views it as something of an unfortunate trade-off.
- IncRnd 9y agoIt is unethical to tell people that it is ethical to lie. The end doesn't justify the means.
- michaelmrose 9y agoThe end often justifies the means if you can't think of cases where this is true you have limited imagination.
- IncRnd 9y agoRepeating an assertion doesn't add correctness, regardless of the strength of your imagination.
- michaelmrose 9y agoWhile principals are important practically good people spend a lot of time applying the principal that one should do what has the most utility for all. This is to say looking at the forseeable ends and picking the means.
- IncRnd 9y agoYou are making the same statement again without a single proof or example to show why lying is ethical, moral, and correct. Repetition doesn't add correctness.