4 ms·

I’m normally automatically skeptical of anything passed by our legislature here (which passes laws to ban plastic straws and water in restaurants but couldn’t c

I’m normally automatically skeptical of anything passed by our legislature here (which passes laws to ban plastic straws and water in restaurants but couldn’t care less about feces and mental illness all over the streets). For this, I’m totally 100% behind the decision. A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Even with the drawbacks it will never get better. We need to protect it and honor it, and that includes letting those who have felt the strong arm of the law decide whether the law itself is applied fairly to other people.

bitwize 7y ago
The thing about California is that the feces problem and the plastic ban are related. San Francisco has had a high ambient homeless population for some time, it's just that when it came time to go poop, they would go in a plastic bag and throw it in a dumpster. And then the city banned plastic bags...
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Paper bags are still available
  - bitwize 7y ago
    They're not viable for the following reasons: * Paper can't adequately and sanitarily hold poop * It's flimsy, recycled paper which is even worse * They cost $0.05 a bag, which is pretty steep for a population many of whom have literally no money Go to a dog park and see what people pick up their dogs' poop with -- paper or plastic?
shadowmore 7y ago
If it offsets the vast amounts of delusional people who have absolutely no concept of the real world and all its dangers, then I'm all for it. People who've been to prison are much more likely to be grounded in visceral reality and weigh things properly compared to much of our increasingly sheltered society, especially along the coasts.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  Isn't a failure to judge something correctly the reason they went to prison in the first place? Are you saying they're so well reformed that their judgement now exceeds that of normal people? In that case, there must be other jobs their superior ability to weigh things can be useful.
  - edgyquant 7y ago
    Not all felons have been to prison. A felony is a charge and can be met with probation (lesser ones almost always are unless the person is a repeat offender.)
  - lawn 7y ago
    Your comment beautifully reinforces the point you try to refute. "Normal" people are naive and clueless about the reality of the world.
gesman 7y ago
Add to that idiotic idea to ban water bottles in SFO to "protect the environment". Now every thirsty passenger in SFO has to either buy a gigantic 1.5L water bottle or of a questionable health-quality aluminum one. Sorry for diversion of a subject, can't resist.
- larnmar 7y ago
  Luckily someone invented La Croix so you can just drink your water fizzy, lightly flavoured, and in a super-wasteful tiny can.
  - esyir 7y ago
    Is aluminium worse than plastic if recycled?
    - larnmar 7y ago
      Not sure, although you’d think the energy cost of re-making the can each time would be pretty significant. Also tou need to drink two cans to replace one water bottle. My other favourite “environmentally friendly” thirst quencher when I can’t get bottled water? Coconut water, imported from god-knows-where.
  - nindalf 7y ago
    Actually, that's pronounced La Croix.
Cougher 7y ago
"A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Even with the drawbacks it will never get better." I'm never understood such blind chauvinism, particularly here in light of all that's been said in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21710564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21710564
- leetcrew 7y ago
  these stories of wrongful conviction seem to indicate a problem with public defenders more than the concept of jury trial itself.
EliRivers 7y ago
A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Is it? How about professional jurors. Would that be an improvement? Or a mix of the two; some peers, some professionals. Or what about short-engagement professional jurors - selected from the citizenry at large, but then given some proper training and acting as jurors for a year. Or perhaps a cadre of professionally trained jurors who take a few months to become trained, and then simply do jury duty alongside their untrained colleagues. Is a simple jury of peers really the best we can do?
- kevingadd 7y ago
  What specifically makes "professional jurors" better, though? I won't say the idea isn't appealing, but what about making them professionals makes them better than our peers? There are already a bunch of heavily regulated professionals involved in the process so it's kind of arbitrary to claim that we need to regulate more of it. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too?
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    There are many ways for juries to just get things wrong, to misunderstand their role, to misunderstand the law, and so on. Sometimes these errors get recognised and corrected, at a cost; sometimes they just plain don't. Some jurors simply don't know how to pay attention and keep track for extended periods of time. Some education and training in advance could create massively more competent juries. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too? Because we don't have a time machine to place professional witnesses where they need to be in order to witness things to testify about.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      Sure, but we already know false/confused testimony is a massive problem, so is it necessarily the case that limiting it to professionals would be worse? Professionals analyzing the evidence, video tapes, etc. We're already moving towards universal surveillance. Many states ban one-party phone/in-person chat recordings, but if we allowed one-party recordings anywhere, any dispute over conversations could be resolved with personal recordings. Just a thought exercise.
harimau777 7y ago
Putting aside the specific issue of felons serving on juries. A hypothetical issue with the concept of "a jury of our peers" could be defining "peers". Are there situations where the issue being litigated is sufficiently specialized that the average person would not constitute a peer? For example, determining whether an engineer followed proper practices. At least in America, is so little shared world view between different segments of society (Democrat and Republican, rural and urban, upper class and working poor, west coast and deep south, etc.) that a given pair of citizens might effectively not be peers? These concerns could be especially important since the law often depends on determining what a "reasonable person" would do in a situation which might vary depending on the "reasonable person's" background.

bitwize 7y ago

The thing about California is that the feces problem and the plastic ban are related. San Francisco has had a high ambient homeless population for some time, it's just that when it came time to go poop, they would go in a plastic bag and throw it in a dumpster. And then the city banned plastic bags...

rolltiide 7y ago
Paper bags are still available
- bitwize 7y ago
  They're not viable for the following reasons: * Paper can't adequately and sanitarily hold poop * It's flimsy, recycled paper which is even worse * They cost $0.05 a bag, which is pretty steep for a population many of whom have literally no money Go to a dog park and see what people pick up their dogs' poop with -- paper or plastic?

shadowmore 7y ago

If it offsets the vast amounts of delusional people who have absolutely no concept of the real world and all its dangers, then I'm all for it. People who've been to prison are much more likely to be grounded in visceral reality and weigh things properly compared to much of our increasingly sheltered society, especially along the coasts.

lopmotr 7y ago
Isn't a failure to judge something correctly the reason they went to prison in the first place? Are you saying they're so well reformed that their judgement now exceeds that of normal people? In that case, there must be other jobs their superior ability to weigh things can be useful.
- edgyquant 7y ago
  Not all felons have been to prison. A felony is a charge and can be met with probation (lesser ones almost always are unless the person is a repeat offender.)
- lawn 7y ago
  Your comment beautifully reinforces the point you try to refute. "Normal" people are naive and clueless about the reality of the world.

gesman 7y ago

Add to that idiotic idea to ban water bottles in SFO to "protect the environment". Now every thirsty passenger in SFO has to either buy a gigantic 1.5L water bottle or of a questionable health-quality aluminum one. Sorry for diversion of a subject, can't resist.

larnmar 7y ago
Luckily someone invented La Croix so you can just drink your water fizzy, lightly flavoured, and in a super-wasteful tiny can.
- esyir 7y ago
  Is aluminium worse than plastic if recycled?
  - larnmar 7y ago
    Not sure, although you’d think the energy cost of re-making the can each time would be pretty significant. Also tou need to drink two cans to replace one water bottle. My other favourite “environmentally friendly” thirst quencher when I can’t get bottled water? Coconut water, imported from god-knows-where.
- nindalf 7y ago
  Actually, that's pronounced La Croix.

Cougher 7y ago

"A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Even with the drawbacks it will never get better." I'm never understood such blind chauvinism, particularly here in light of all that's been said in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21710564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21710564

leetcrew 7y ago
these stories of wrongful conviction seem to indicate a problem with public defenders more than the concept of jury trial itself.

EliRivers 7y ago

A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Is it? How about professional jurors. Would that be an improvement? Or a mix of the two; some peers, some professionals. Or what about short-engagement professional jurors - selected from the citizenry at large, but then given some proper training and acting as jurors for a year. Or perhaps a cadre of professionally trained jurors who take a few months to become trained, and then simply do jury duty alongside their untrained colleagues. Is a simple jury of peers really the best we can do?

kevingadd 7y ago
What specifically makes "professional jurors" better, though? I won't say the idea isn't appealing, but what about making them professionals makes them better than our peers? There are already a bunch of heavily regulated professionals involved in the process so it's kind of arbitrary to claim that we need to regulate more of it. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too?
- EliRivers 7y ago
  There are many ways for juries to just get things wrong, to misunderstand their role, to misunderstand the law, and so on. Sometimes these errors get recognised and corrected, at a cost; sometimes they just plain don't. Some jurors simply don't know how to pay attention and keep track for extended periods of time. Some education and training in advance could create massively more competent juries. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too? Because we don't have a time machine to place professional witnesses where they need to be in order to witness things to testify about.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    Sure, but we already know false/confused testimony is a massive problem, so is it necessarily the case that limiting it to professionals would be worse? Professionals analyzing the evidence, video tapes, etc. We're already moving towards universal surveillance. Many states ban one-party phone/in-person chat recordings, but if we allowed one-party recordings anywhere, any dispute over conversations could be resolved with personal recordings. Just a thought exercise.

harimau777 7y ago

Putting aside the specific issue of felons serving on juries. A hypothetical issue with the concept of "a jury of our peers" could be defining "peers". Are there situations where the issue being litigated is sufficiently specialized that the average person would not constitute a peer? For example, determining whether an engineer followed proper practices. At least in America, is so little shared world view between different segments of society (Democrat and Republican, rural and urban, upper class and working poor, west coast and deep south, etc.) that a given pair of citizens might effectively not be peers? These concerns could be especially important since the law often depends on determining what a "reasonable person" would do in a situation which might vary depending on the "reasonable person's" background.