5 ms·

Juries are a way of preventing the "system" having all of the power. A jury of my peers is a different demographic to a well educated but entirely indoctrinate

Juries are a way of preventing the "system" having all of the power. A jury of my peers is a different demographic to a well educated but entirely indoctrinated 50 year old judge. They don't see this every day, they won't have built up the same responses that a judge inevitably would. The proverbial headmaster arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than a jury of my peers, to me.

gambiting 9y ago
On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law and can be swayed toward a guilty verdict by the prosecutors even in the absence of evidence - if they "feel" someone is guilty then they vote that way. That is insane to me personally. Yes, a judge might have a bias - but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't - they can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that(the judge can overrule them for gross negligence of their duties but that doesn't happen very often).
- Amezarak 9y ago
  AFAIK you can waive your right to a jury trial and simply appear before a judge in most jurisdictions. In general through, judges have a strong bias towards the prosecution. DAs and judges are often extremely friendly since they work with each other every day. I would say that if you're innocent or your case has any extenuating circumstances, you almost always have a better shot with a jury than a judge. Juries also allow for jury nullification, which allows for unjust laws to be ignored. I dearly wish that jury trials were available in all cases. I recently went through a non-criminal case where justice was decidedly not served. The judge, of course, claimed he "had to follow the law" but his interpretation of the law contradicted the plain-text reading of the relevant statute. I had no choice but to suck it up unless I wanted to drop the rest of my life savings on an appeal. I feel pretty confident a jury would have seen things very differently.
- dghf 9y ago
  > a judge ... can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that The defence can ask a judge to throw out a case on the grounds that there is no evidence on which a jury could reasonably convict.
- talmand 9y ago
  >> On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law I think you're assuming quite a bit on the education, knowledge, and experience of the law on the part of the judge. There is no guarantee that the judge you get knows anything about the law pertaining to your case. >> but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't And yet, judges are reversed all the time on appeal based on the idea that the judge got the law wrong. Plus I'm fairly certain the judge has a great deal more power in the courtroom than the jury. A judge can certainly put you in jail for a period of time just because they feel like it.
Faark 9y ago
An angry and easily manipulable lynch mob arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me. But more seriously, the jury system also has serious flaws. I'd guess its bias towards existing norms. Bias against minorities in the jury pool. And its hard enough for us not accidentally trap into social media echo chambers. I doubt i'd notice attempts to personally manipulate me by a well funded defense (even without FB-like info about me). At the same time, a public defender wont have the resources to even try. Guess "no free lunch" applies to legal systems as well. So far we haven't found an optimal system, at least.
- naasking 9y ago
  > An angry and easily manipulable lynch mob arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me. You mean a bunch of random people who have no vested interest in the trial's outcome, and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you in a premeditated fashion, vs. someone in a clear, long-term position of power that makes for an easy target of bribery, blackmail, or corrupt nepotism? You would seriously prefer that? Centralization of power should generally not be preferred.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    > You mean a bunch of random people who have no vested interest in the trial's outcome, and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you in a premeditated fashion This is not how juries are formed. The parties can refuse jurors and you can refuse yourself if you are chosen.
    - naasking 9y ago
      I fail to see how this negates anything in that passage that you quoted. In what way can the jury be stacked for or against you, premeditatively?
      - gambiting 9y ago

gambiting 9y ago

On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law and can be swayed toward a guilty verdict by the prosecutors even in the absence of evidence - if they "feel" someone is guilty then they vote that way. That is insane to me personally. Yes, a judge might have a bias - but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't - they can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that(the judge can overrule them for gross negligence of their duties but that doesn't happen very often).

Amezarak 9y ago
AFAIK you can waive your right to a jury trial and simply appear before a judge in most jurisdictions. In general through, judges have a strong bias towards the prosecution. DAs and judges are often extremely friendly since they work with each other every day. I would say that if you're innocent or your case has any extenuating circumstances, you almost always have a better shot with a jury than a judge. Juries also allow for jury nullification, which allows for unjust laws to be ignored. I dearly wish that jury trials were available in all cases. I recently went through a non-criminal case where justice was decidedly not served. The judge, of course, claimed he "had to follow the law" but his interpretation of the law contradicted the plain-text reading of the relevant statute. I had no choice but to suck it up unless I wanted to drop the rest of my life savings on an appeal. I feel pretty confident a jury would have seen things very differently.
dghf 9y ago
> a judge ... can't go "well, there is no evidence, but I feel like you're guilty, so off to prison with you!" - a jury of peers can absolutely do that The defence can ask a judge to throw out a case on the grounds that there is no evidence on which a jury could reasonably convict.
talmand 9y ago
>> On the other hand, it's horrific to me that my fate can be decided by people who have no formal education in law I think you're assuming quite a bit on the education, knowledge, and experience of the law on the part of the judge. There is no guarantee that the judge you get knows anything about the law pertaining to your case. >> but their decisions have to be based in the law and either you broke a law or you haven't And yet, judges are reversed all the time on appeal based on the idea that the judge got the law wrong. Plus I'm fairly certain the judge has a great deal more power in the courtroom than the jury. A judge can certainly put you in jail for a period of time just because they feel like it.

Faark 9y ago

An angry and easily manipulable lynch mob arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me. But more seriously, the jury system also has serious flaws. I'd guess its bias towards existing norms. Bias against minorities in the jury pool. And its hard enough for us not accidentally trap into social media echo chambers. I doubt i'd notice attempts to personally manipulate me by a well funded defense (even without FB-like info about me). At the same time, a public defender wont have the resources to even try. Guess "no free lunch" applies to legal systems as well. So far we haven't found an optimal system, at least.

naasking 9y ago
> An angry and easily manipulable lynch mob arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me. You mean a bunch of random people who have no vested interest in the trial's outcome, and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you in a premeditated fashion, vs. someone in a clear, long-term position of power that makes for an easy target of bribery, blackmail, or corrupt nepotism? You would seriously prefer that? Centralization of power should generally not be preferred.
- JetSpiegel 9y ago
  > You mean a bunch of random people who have no vested interest in the trial's outcome, and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you in a premeditated fashion This is not how juries are formed. The parties can refuse jurors and you can refuse yourself if you are chosen.
  - naasking 9y ago
    I fail to see how this negates anything in that passage that you quoted. In what way can the jury be stacked for or against you, premeditatively?
    - gambiting 9y ago