3 ms·

> Juries are pushed to consider only the statutes in question as written and aren't expected or asked to consider for themselves if the crime is something they

by js2 3y ago

> Juries are pushed to consider only the statutes in question as written and aren't expected or asked to consider for themselves if the crime is something they even think matters. Doing otherwise is known as nullification and you'll never sit on a jury if you even imply you know such a thing exists. Here's Paul Newman's character in the The Verdict arguing for it though: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechtheverdict.html https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechth... (The movie is well worth watching and pairs well with 12 Angry Men, both directed by Sidney Lumet.)

_heimdall 3y ago
Its lower on my list of complaints of the legal system, but I also don't like the jury selection process itself. Juries are meant to be a random sampling of peers in the community, jury selection gamifies that process and muddied the water.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  A random selection of citizens can get 12 KKK members on the jury for the murder of a black man. I mean this isn't just supposed to be mob rule, this is supposed to be impartial people applying the established law. The input for opinion comes when voting for the legislature.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    It sure can, the legal system will never be perfect though I'd seriously question where you live if there's any feasible chance of randomly selecting an entire jury of KKK members What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
    - Pet_Ant 3y ago
      > What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? The check on the legal system is appealing to the higher courts. They can strike down laws that are against the constitution. Trials aren't referendums. > If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law? To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders. Especially as the deciders may come from a certain section of society (eg upper-class educated, and thus may unduly disregard the poor) they may have incentives or biases or connections that may influence their impartiality of their evaluation.
      - javajosh 3y ago
        Hey, we were having a similar convo on a different sub-thread and in one comment I addressed these concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        (related to the thread linked by a sibling post as well) > To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders Without jury nullification, I'm not quite sure how a jury actually avoids this. If the model is that the jury is tasked specifically and exclusively with listening to the specific laws deemed relevant by the lawyers, hear the evidence, and determine whether the combination of the two justify the charges then an unskilled jury is a risk. A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination. Without giving the jury the responsibility to deviate from what may technically have been a crime, why are they there? Do they really have a better skillet to determine whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the law(a) were broken?
        Pet_Ant 3y ago
        > A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination. In many places the accused has the right to request a trial by judge. This can be done if, for example, the charges are so shocking that the accused feels that a juror cannot be trusted to be impartial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial

by js2 3y ago

_heimdall 3y ago

Its lower on my list of complaints of the legal system, but I also don't like the jury selection process itself. Juries are meant to be a random sampling of peers in the community, jury selection gamifies that process and muddied the water.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
A random selection of citizens can get 12 KKK members on the jury for the murder of a black man. I mean this isn't just supposed to be mob rule, this is supposed to be impartial people applying the established law. The input for opinion comes when voting for the legislature.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  It sure can, the legal system will never be perfect though I'd seriously question where you live if there's any feasible chance of randomly selecting an entire jury of KKK members What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    > What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? The check on the legal system is appealing to the higher courts. They can strike down laws that are against the constitution. Trials aren't referendums. > If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law? To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders. Especially as the deciders may come from a certain section of society (eg upper-class educated, and thus may unduly disregard the poor) they may have incentives or biases or connections that may influence their impartiality of their evaluation.
    - javajosh 3y ago
      Hey, we were having a similar convo on a different sub-thread and in one comment I addressed these concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      (related to the thread linked by a sibling post as well) > To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders Without jury nullification, I'm not quite sure how a jury actually avoids this. If the model is that the jury is tasked specifically and exclusively with listening to the specific laws deemed relevant by the lawyers, hear the evidence, and determine whether the combination of the two justify the charges then an unskilled jury is a risk. A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination. Without giving the jury the responsibility to deviate from what may technically have been a crime, why are they there? Do they really have a better skillet to determine whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the law(a) were broken?
      - Pet_Ant 3y ago
        > A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination. In many places the accused has the right to request a trial by judge. This can be done if, for example, the charges are so shocking that the accused feels that a juror cannot be trusted to be impartial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial