4 ms·

In 1998, I helped convict two men of murder. I’ve regretted it ever since

41 points by smacktoward 8y ago

js2 8y ago
Long piece. The crux of it: > Pluck 12 random Americans with wildly differing capacities to reason and express themselves verbally. Demand they step away from their lives for some indeterminate amount of time. Force them to listen to unsettling stories of violence and predation. Isolate them, and make them bicker with each other until they speak as one. Then grant them the power to lock a man in a cage. and > I ended up arriving at the same place. It was the language of the law that hemmed me in. It seemed strict and unyielding. A different jury, a different mix of humans, might have felt less constrained by those words. [...] No matter what the law said, the decision was ours. We had a choice. This is the closest the piece comes to addressing nullification. I wish the writer had spent a little more time on that. For someone who's regretted a decision for 20 years, I'm sure he's spent a lot of time thinking about doing what's right vs following the law.
Amezarak 8y ago
People on HN often decry the jury system. A reminder: while you have a right to a jury trial, the justice system is all too eager to get you into a bench trial, which takes place only before a judge, to save time and money. Taking a jury trial is a choice, one the prosecution and judge both generally never want you to take. In this case, as in many, it was the law and the judge that potentially miscarried justice. Right away, we see the judge refusing to sever the defendants from each other - because one trial is easier than two. The writer felt that the judge hemmed them in. The only chance this guy had was jury nullification. That’s why the right to a jury trial is so important.
- philwelch 8y ago
  The purpose of a jury isn't because juries are better at deciding verdicts, any more than voters are better at choosing the best candidate for elected office. It's a mechanism for keeping the common people in control of the state.
  - sunstone 8y ago
    Yeah, rather than having the judges and the prosecutors stitch everything up between themselves with a nudge and nod and a wink.

41 points by smacktoward 8y ago

js2 8y ago

Long piece. The crux of it: > Pluck 12 random Americans with wildly differing capacities to reason and express themselves verbally. Demand they step away from their lives for some indeterminate amount of time. Force them to listen to unsettling stories of violence and predation. Isolate them, and make them bicker with each other until they speak as one. Then grant them the power to lock a man in a cage. and > I ended up arriving at the same place. It was the language of the law that hemmed me in. It seemed strict and unyielding. A different jury, a different mix of humans, might have felt less constrained by those words. [...] No matter what the law said, the decision was ours. We had a choice. This is the closest the piece comes to addressing nullification. I wish the writer had spent a little more time on that. For someone who's regretted a decision for 20 years, I'm sure he's spent a lot of time thinking about doing what's right vs following the law.

Amezarak 8y ago

People on HN often decry the jury system. A reminder: while you have a right to a jury trial, the justice system is all too eager to get you into a bench trial, which takes place only before a judge, to save time and money. Taking a jury trial is a choice, one the prosecution and judge both generally never want you to take. In this case, as in many, it was the law and the judge that potentially miscarried justice. Right away, we see the judge refusing to sever the defendants from each other - because one trial is easier than two. The writer felt that the judge hemmed them in. The only chance this guy had was jury nullification. That’s why the right to a jury trial is so important.

philwelch 8y ago
The purpose of a jury isn't because juries are better at deciding verdicts, any more than voters are better at choosing the best candidate for elected office. It's a mechanism for keeping the common people in control of the state.
- sunstone 8y ago
  Yeah, rather than having the judges and the prosecutors stitch everything up between themselves with a nudge and nod and a wink.