5 ms·

Having 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

Having 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 ago
It'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 ago
  It 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.
  - gowld 9y ago
    Juries (And indirectly, the Supreme Court) are the only part of the criminal justice system in the US Constitution. Juries are the core of the system. Everything else is minor details.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    The Constitution and centuries of common law tradition thinks it is a legitimate use of the powers of a juror. Since those are the ultimate source of law in this country, the criminal justice system is wrong.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      The Constitution is not the one making the decision on who is sitting on any particular jury.
Alex3917 9y ago
> I wouldn't want to be tried by jurors that were wilfully dishonest Why not? That's often by far the best case scenario.
- travem 9y ago
  There’s a lot of implicit privilege baked into that statement.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Is there? Are minorities treated better by criminal justice systems without juries? I’m not saying our system is perfect but where’s the better alternative?
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Someone who has been selected for the belief that police are more reliable that others is clearly not impartial. It's right in the dictionary definition of the word impartial: "treating or affecting all equally".

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 ago

It'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 ago
It 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.
- gowld 9y ago
  Juries (And indirectly, the Supreme Court) are the only part of the criminal justice system in the US Constitution. Juries are the core of the system. Everything else is minor details.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  The Constitution and centuries of common law tradition thinks it is a legitimate use of the powers of a juror. Since those are the ultimate source of law in this country, the criminal justice system is wrong.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    The Constitution is not the one making the decision on who is sitting on any particular jury.

Alex3917 9y ago

> I wouldn't want to be tried by jurors that were wilfully dishonest Why not? That's often by far the best case scenario.

travem 9y ago
There’s a lot of implicit privilege baked into that statement.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Is there? Are minorities treated better by criminal justice systems without juries? I’m not saying our system is perfect but where’s the better alternative?

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

Someone who has been selected for the belief that police are more reliable that others is clearly not impartial. It's right in the dictionary definition of the word impartial: "treating or affecting all equally".