4 ms·

I think this is an interesting issue. We have this idea of “common people” being jurors, who are supposed to apply common sense to the facts of a case, as a sor

I think this is an interesting issue. We have this idea of “common people” being jurors, who are supposed to apply common sense to the facts of a case, as a sort of balance against corruption and weenie-headed legal technocrats, but the whole system is implicitly predicated on those jurors mostly being inside some culture window where they know what’s happening at all. Like hypothetically if you plucked a guy from an isolated tribe in the amazon (who spoke perfect english), then put him on a jury, he would just be lost. “Well, so, we gave them net90 terms in the original contract, but then in the email dated…” — the content is just beyond his ability to reason about from where he’s sitting. Maybe our culture has a sufficiently large internal spread either between itself or between the legal system, that the average juror is more like the tribal guy on the jury than not? It’s mostly not a problem because tricky contract disputes aren’t normally jury trials, it’s mostly people doing comprehensible things for human reasons, which is a good match for jurors. But then you introduce stuff like I Fucking Love Science propaganda plus Hair DNA Matching: SCIENCE! And how are people supposed to use their common sense to apply judgement? The original context of jurors was like “I don’t know about no fancy laws, but wrong is wrong,” like folksy, probably-religion-based moral intuitions that prevent legal nerds from running amok. But where are we now, if the nerds can just say the word SCIENCE and the jury has no choice but to sign off? I have no idea what the right answer is, but probably the current setup isn’t it.

tomrod 5y ago
Jury selection weeds against jury nullification, implicitly choosing for those who feel illegal determines immoral.
alistairSH 5y ago
The judge is supposed to determine which evidence is allowed. The jurors only need to understand the evidence to the extent it proves guilt. Given new science, the prosecution and defense make their case and the judge allows/disallows the evidence. But, the judge isn’t a scientist, she’s a lawyer (if we’re lucky - some parts of the US have elected judges with little to no professional requirements). And the prosecution might have more money and better experts.
watwut 5y ago
> the whole system is implicitly predicated on those jurors mostly being inside some culture window where they know what’s happening at all. I think they are explicitly assumed to be from community, so that they understand social aspects of issue. I remember layers talking about that. I am no expert on this, but jury gets very specific questions they are supposed to answer. There is a lot more to it both in theory and practical then just folksy wisdom against "the nerds". > But then you introduce stuff like I Fucking Love Science propaganda plus Hair DNA Matching: SCIENCE! And how are people supposed to use their common sense to apply judgement? They are not. This part is supposed to be on layers to not allow "propaganda" into the room in the first place. If the system regularly pushes in bad science and does not enable defense to conteract it, issue is not with jurors at all.
bsder 5y ago
Problem 1: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors with enough brains to get out of it. I consider jury duty a civic duty, but now I will now make sure I properly qualify for an exception because ... Problem 2: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors who will exhibit independent thinking. If you have a job which is based on engineering, you're likely getting struck by the prosecution. I actually watched the prosecution and defense play chicken over who was going to strike me. I've wasted enough hours in my life showing up for jury duty only to get struck over and over and over. Problem 3: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects for jurors who exhibit deference to authority which means effectively "Defendant in the seat is guilty." This is a problem because if the prosecution had a slam dunk of a case there probably wouldn't be a trial. The correct Bayesian prior for sitting on a jury is almost always that the prosecution should be viewed with extreme skepticism. A lot of the problem in the jury system in the US could be solved by disallowing prosecutorial strikes. The prosecution has enough advantages--if you can't make the case with an actually random jury, tough, you didn't have a case and didn't do your job properly.

tomrod 5y ago

Jury selection weeds against jury nullification, implicitly choosing for those who feel illegal determines immoral.

alistairSH 5y ago

The judge is supposed to determine which evidence is allowed. The jurors only need to understand the evidence to the extent it proves guilt. Given new science, the prosecution and defense make their case and the judge allows/disallows the evidence. But, the judge isn’t a scientist, she’s a lawyer (if we’re lucky - some parts of the US have elected judges with little to no professional requirements). And the prosecution might have more money and better experts.

watwut 5y ago

> the whole system is implicitly predicated on those jurors mostly being inside some culture window where they know what’s happening at all. I think they are explicitly assumed to be from community, so that they understand social aspects of issue. I remember layers talking about that. I am no expert on this, but jury gets very specific questions they are supposed to answer. There is a lot more to it both in theory and practical then just folksy wisdom against "the nerds". > But then you introduce stuff like I Fucking Love Science propaganda plus Hair DNA Matching: SCIENCE! And how are people supposed to use their common sense to apply judgement? They are not. This part is supposed to be on layers to not allow "propaganda" into the room in the first place. If the system regularly pushes in bad science and does not enable defense to conteract it, issue is not with jurors at all.

bsder 5y ago

Problem 1: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors with enough brains to get out of it. I consider jury duty a civic duty, but now I will now make sure I properly qualify for an exception because ... Problem 2: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects against jurors who will exhibit independent thinking. If you have a job which is based on engineering, you're likely getting struck by the prosecution. I actually watched the prosecution and defense play chicken over who was going to strike me. I've wasted enough hours in my life showing up for jury duty only to get struck over and over and over. Problem 3: Jury selection in the US explicitly selects for jurors who exhibit deference to authority which means effectively "Defendant in the seat is guilty." This is a problem because if the prosecution had a slam dunk of a case there probably wouldn't be a trial. The correct Bayesian prior for sitting on a jury is almost always that the prosecution should be viewed with extreme skepticism. A lot of the problem in the jury system in the US could be solved by disallowing prosecutorial strikes. The prosecution has enough advantages--if you can't make the case with an actually random jury, tough, you didn't have a case and didn't do your job properly.