5 ms·

I disagree with the jury system but as I understand it American jurors are supposed to reflect society. If you only want smart people you leave it to the judge

I disagree with the jury system but as I understand it American jurors are supposed to reflect society. If you only want smart people you leave it to the judge.

dls2016 5y ago
About those judges…
dTal 5y ago
In fact jury selection is notorious for discarding potential jurors with intelligence, critical thinking, legal awareness, or domain expertise. Jurors reflect the part of society least qualified to be making these decisions. Attorneys do not want thinkers, they want predictable cogs in the court machine.
- parineum 5y ago
  > In fact jury selection is notorious for discarding potential jurors with intelligence, critical thinking, legal awareness, or domain expertise. Jurors reflect the part of society least qualified to be making these decisions. Jurors get dismissed based on whether or not one side feels they decide in their favor or not. That's it.
  - Buttons840 5y ago
    When there's no agreement I suspect the less educated are favored though. I'd believe a juror getting dismissed for knowing statistics and being persuadable by logical arguments, before I'd believe a juror being dismissed for being in a demographic who favors police and emotional arguments.
    - parineum 5y ago
      Depends on which side is moving to dismiss that particular juror and what finding in their favor would require.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    So whoever thinks their case is weakest when viewed intelligently (i.e. ability to handle subtletly, nuance, complexity, rational over emotion, science, statistics) is going to need to get those intelligent people off the jury.
- oceanghost 5y ago
  Just mentioning FIJA can be enough to land you in jail.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    That's not true. Jury nullification is legal (both talking about it and carrying it out), even if some judges and prosecutors wish it otherwise.
    - oceanghost 5y ago
      I can't find any supporting documentation-- so take this as hearsay-- but I recall a man being arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets in front of a courthouse at the Southwestern Justice Center in Riverside, CA.
caymanjim 5y ago
You have the right to not have a jury. There are some downsides. It's harder to win an appeal; jury nullification is off the table; plenty of judges are biased or uninformed. Your lawyer can't manipulate a judge as easily as a jury. Still, if I had to defend myself against some emotionally charged claim whose defense relied on legal technicalities, I might prefer a bench trial to a bunch of idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty. If the potential jury of "my peers" were going to be biased against me for reasons of religion or race or culture, I'd be more inclined to let a judge decide.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  What we need is a right to a multi-judge tribunal.
  - caymanjim 5y ago
    Agreed, although impractical due to a shortage of judges. You shouldn't have to rely on making it to an appeals panel to have your fate decided by more than the whims of a single person.
- reddog 5y ago
  > a bunch of idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty Maybe they are not idiots, just regular folks who take their civic duty seriously.
  - caymanjim 5y ago
    Yeah, that was too dismissive. I do think there's a problem with juries in that the pool of people is narrowed to those who both want to and are able to serve. Some jobs will pay employees who have jury duty, but many will not. Some people have backup caregivers for their dependents, but many don't. I'm not interested enough to look for statistics on it, but I would be surprised if juries aren't primarily composed of a narrow subset of social classes, like upper middle class professionals, retired people, the childless, and the unemployed, or some similar categories. It should be hard to get out of serving and jurors should be compensated in a way that eliminates the financial burden without becoming an incentive in itself.
scotty79 5y ago
What's worse is that judges are elected and it creates perverse incentives.
kingcharles 5y ago
Wait... there are smart judges?!

I disagree with the jury system but as I understand it American jurors are supposed to reflect society. If you only want smart people you leave it to the judge.

dls2016 5y ago

About those judges…

dTal 5y ago

In fact jury selection is notorious for discarding potential jurors with intelligence, critical thinking, legal awareness, or domain expertise. Jurors reflect the part of society least qualified to be making these decisions. Attorneys do not want thinkers, they want predictable cogs in the court machine.

parineum 5y ago
> In fact jury selection is notorious for discarding potential jurors with intelligence, critical thinking, legal awareness, or domain expertise. Jurors reflect the part of society least qualified to be making these decisions. Jurors get dismissed based on whether or not one side feels they decide in their favor or not. That's it.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  When there's no agreement I suspect the less educated are favored though. I'd believe a juror getting dismissed for knowing statistics and being persuadable by logical arguments, before I'd believe a juror being dismissed for being in a demographic who favors police and emotional arguments.
  - parineum 5y ago
    Depends on which side is moving to dismiss that particular juror and what finding in their favor would require.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  So whoever thinks their case is weakest when viewed intelligently (i.e. ability to handle subtletly, nuance, complexity, rational over emotion, science, statistics) is going to need to get those intelligent people off the jury.
oceanghost 5y ago
Just mentioning FIJA can be enough to land you in jail.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  That's not true. Jury nullification is legal (both talking about it and carrying it out), even if some judges and prosecutors wish it otherwise.
  - oceanghost 5y ago
    I can't find any supporting documentation-- so take this as hearsay-- but I recall a man being arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets in front of a courthouse at the Southwestern Justice Center in Riverside, CA.

caymanjim 5y ago

You have the right to not have a jury. There are some downsides. It's harder to win an appeal; jury nullification is off the table; plenty of judges are biased or uninformed. Your lawyer can't manipulate a judge as easily as a jury. Still, if I had to defend myself against some emotionally charged claim whose defense relied on legal technicalities, I might prefer a bench trial to a bunch of idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty. If the potential jury of "my peers" were going to be biased against me for reasons of religion or race or culture, I'd be more inclined to let a judge decide.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
What we need is a right to a multi-judge tribunal.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  Agreed, although impractical due to a shortage of judges. You shouldn't have to rely on making it to an appeals panel to have your fate decided by more than the whims of a single person.
reddog 5y ago
> a bunch of idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty Maybe they are not idiots, just regular folks who take their civic duty seriously.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  Yeah, that was too dismissive. I do think there's a problem with juries in that the pool of people is narrowed to those who both want to and are able to serve. Some jobs will pay employees who have jury duty, but many will not. Some people have backup caregivers for their dependents, but many don't. I'm not interested enough to look for statistics on it, but I would be surprised if juries aren't primarily composed of a narrow subset of social classes, like upper middle class professionals, retired people, the childless, and the unemployed, or some similar categories. It should be hard to get out of serving and jurors should be compensated in a way that eliminates the financial burden without becoming an incentive in itself.

scotty79 5y ago

What's worse is that judges are elected and it creates perverse incentives.

kingcharles 5y ago

Wait... there are smart judges?!