4 ms·

If they came back in tears and were removed from the jury, then the system worked. A clearly impartial potential juror was removed and a past victim was saved

If they came back in tears and were removed from the jury, then the system worked. A clearly impartial potential juror was removed and a past victim was saved from a horrible experience of sitting through such testimony. But what about those who have been abused but aren't in tears? This came up very recently. One of the Ghislaine Maxwell jurors discussed his history of being abused with other jurors. The question becomes then whether anyone who has been abused can ever be impartial about abuse. To say that they cannot, imho, does victims a great disservice. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59884806 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59884806

deanCommie 5y ago
I find the very premise of trying to find an "impartial" jury very strange. It makes sense at first pass, but falls apart soon after. Are these not to be a jury of my "peers". Are not all humans biased in one way or another. If being abused creates bias, why wouldn't NOT being abused also not create bias. We don't have perfect access to information. Sometimes in order to be considered impartial, jurors are basically expected to have no familiarity with basic fundamental news stories. Are people so disconnected from reality really "peers"? Ultimately, I guess, it's the best we can do.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Impartiality in a jury trial context doesn't refer to the absence of biases (we all have them and truly getting rid of them is an impossible task), but a conscious effect by the jurors to discharge their office without prejudice, i.e., without allowing their biases to manifest as judgments independent of the evidence presented in court. Put another way: there wouldn't be a point in deliberation if we didn't have biases. Our justice system trusts and (weakly) attempts to enforce the gap between those biases and prejudices that would actually interfere with the court's duty.
  - jerf 5y ago
    And to put it another way, the job of a juror is to convict or exonerate the person on trial, not to convict or exonerate their own abusers by proxy. Vulcans might not have a problem with this, but humans so obviously do that pretending otherwise is impractical.
    - bcrosby95 5y ago
      I've served on a few juries. From my experience, the average person thinks its much easier to get out of it due to biases than it actually is.
- 300bps 5y ago
  Are not all humans biased in one way or another This appears to be binary thinking. There are nearly infinite degrees of bias. Strong emotions are one way to ensure that someone is heavily biased. That's what the jury system is trying to avoid. So someone who has never been abused can still be biased in literally any way. But the presumption is that without having such an emotional personal experience with it means they are less likely to be heavily biased. They'll be more likely to be swayed by the testimony in court rather than their experience outside of the court room.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  If you're accused but innocent and provide a good case for your innocence, but a juror provides a crying testimony that no one believed them in the jury room, leading to you being sentenced, you'd probably think differently. Sure, we can't get a perfectly impartial jury. But someone with a past trauma probably won't be able to judge the case for its merits.
- not2b 5y ago
  The "peers" part is obsolete. In the old English system, a peasant was tried by other peasants, a noble by other nobles. There's no longer a notion that some people are your peers and others aren't.
kmonsen 5y ago
If you remove any jurors with history of abuse, do you not remove all the people that have life experience that could be relevant? With a jury of only lets say strong white males that have never been abused or abuse adjacent, but have had several experience where they felt woman didn't give them enough respect are we that would seem a lot worse to me. Obviously this sounds like an extreme example, but the reality is that such a large part of the population has been the victim in abuse situations that you are going to disqualify into a situation similar to this.
- tomp 5y ago
  I'm a white male who's never been sexually abused but I can clearly see that's wrong. This, and being more objective / less emotional (due to not seeing it personally) would probably make me a better juror in such a case than someone who's personally experienced it.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    I don't know, I am also a white male and I feel I cannot understand how abuse really works. Of course this might just be me being dense, doesn't say anything about you or anyone else.
  - not2b 5y ago
    With no experience of abuse, you might more likely to be persuaded by arguments like "why didn't she report it earlier" than people with actual experience, who know exactly why.
- kazinator 5y ago
  I think the whole concept of random citizens being pulled in for jury duty is idiotic. Jurors should be professionals who are trained in being jurors: who, for one thing, thoroughly understand topics in critical reasoning such as fallacies, and cognitive biases. They should be properly paid, and so are not sitting there on a Saturday morning, socking it to the defendant out of spite for being dragged out of their regular lives without adequate compensation.
rectang 5y ago
> If they came back in tears and were removed from the jury, then the system worked. Not true, since no abusers came back in tears and were removed from the jury. Or do you consider abusers impartial but abuse victims biased?
mywacaday 5y ago
Rightly or wrongly its not about disservice to a victim turning up for jury duty its about disservice to the accused. Imagine if you were wrongly prosecuted for for abuse, found guilty and then discovered that three members of the jury had themselves suffered the same abuse you were accused of, you'd immediately look for a re-trial.

deanCommie 5y ago

I find the very premise of trying to find an "impartial" jury very strange. It makes sense at first pass, but falls apart soon after. Are these not to be a jury of my "peers". Are not all humans biased in one way or another. If being abused creates bias, why wouldn't NOT being abused also not create bias. We don't have perfect access to information. Sometimes in order to be considered impartial, jurors are basically expected to have no familiarity with basic fundamental news stories. Are people so disconnected from reality really "peers"? Ultimately, I guess, it's the best we can do.

woodruffw 5y ago
Impartiality in a jury trial context doesn't refer to the absence of biases (we all have them and truly getting rid of them is an impossible task), but a conscious effect by the jurors to discharge their office without prejudice, i.e., without allowing their biases to manifest as judgments independent of the evidence presented in court. Put another way: there wouldn't be a point in deliberation if we didn't have biases. Our justice system trusts and (weakly) attempts to enforce the gap between those biases and prejudices that would actually interfere with the court's duty.
- jerf 5y ago
  And to put it another way, the job of a juror is to convict or exonerate the person on trial, not to convict or exonerate their own abusers by proxy. Vulcans might not have a problem with this, but humans so obviously do that pretending otherwise is impractical.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    I've served on a few juries. From my experience, the average person thinks its much easier to get out of it due to biases than it actually is.
300bps 5y ago
Are not all humans biased in one way or another This appears to be binary thinking. There are nearly infinite degrees of bias. Strong emotions are one way to ensure that someone is heavily biased. That's what the jury system is trying to avoid. So someone who has never been abused can still be biased in literally any way. But the presumption is that without having such an emotional personal experience with it means they are less likely to be heavily biased. They'll be more likely to be swayed by the testimony in court rather than their experience outside of the court room.
Sebb767 5y ago
If you're accused but innocent and provide a good case for your innocence, but a juror provides a crying testimony that no one believed them in the jury room, leading to you being sentenced, you'd probably think differently. Sure, we can't get a perfectly impartial jury. But someone with a past trauma probably won't be able to judge the case for its merits.
not2b 5y ago
The "peers" part is obsolete. In the old English system, a peasant was tried by other peasants, a noble by other nobles. There's no longer a notion that some people are your peers and others aren't.

kmonsen 5y ago

If you remove any jurors with history of abuse, do you not remove all the people that have life experience that could be relevant? With a jury of only lets say strong white males that have never been abused or abuse adjacent, but have had several experience where they felt woman didn't give them enough respect are we that would seem a lot worse to me. Obviously this sounds like an extreme example, but the reality is that such a large part of the population has been the victim in abuse situations that you are going to disqualify into a situation similar to this.

tomp 5y ago
I'm a white male who's never been sexually abused but I can clearly see that's wrong. This, and being more objective / less emotional (due to not seeing it personally) would probably make me a better juror in such a case than someone who's personally experienced it.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  I don't know, I am also a white male and I feel I cannot understand how abuse really works. Of course this might just be me being dense, doesn't say anything about you or anyone else.
- not2b 5y ago
  With no experience of abuse, you might more likely to be persuaded by arguments like "why didn't she report it earlier" than people with actual experience, who know exactly why.
kazinator 5y ago
I think the whole concept of random citizens being pulled in for jury duty is idiotic. Jurors should be professionals who are trained in being jurors: who, for one thing, thoroughly understand topics in critical reasoning such as fallacies, and cognitive biases. They should be properly paid, and so are not sitting there on a Saturday morning, socking it to the defendant out of spite for being dragged out of their regular lives without adequate compensation.

rectang 5y ago

> If they came back in tears and were removed from the jury, then the system worked. Not true, since no abusers came back in tears and were removed from the jury. Or do you consider abusers impartial but abuse victims biased?

mywacaday 5y ago

Rightly or wrongly its not about disservice to a victim turning up for jury duty its about disservice to the accused. Imagine if you were wrongly prosecuted for for abuse, found guilty and then discovered that three members of the jury had themselves suffered the same abuse you were accused of, you'd immediately look for a re-trial.