4 ms·

While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The prin

by lhnz 3y ago

While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of many legal systems and taught and emphasized to jurors in instructions before they deliberate.

Retric 3y ago
It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.
- lhnz 3y ago
  Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't contain any evidence. You haven't substantiated your claim.
  - Retric 3y ago
    My statements didn’t included citations but my argument did reference multiple studies and post verdict interviews, a subtle difference. Here’s a quote for my 3/4 agree, 5x more likely to convict when they disagree: “ The judge and jury in the Kalven-Zeisel survey of 3,500 criminal cases agreed in 78% of the cases on whether or not to convict. When they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases” https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/jury-decisions-vs-judges-decisions/ https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psycholog... Feel free to look up some more, there’s some variation here.
    - lhnz 3y ago
      The claim you made which I referred to as a sweeping statement was that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt. This study you cite is not relevant to that claim.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Yet you made no reference to it in your poorly executed attack. How about just a baseline do juries even understand what it means? “Numerous appellate courts have cautioned trial judges not to explain the reasonable doubt standard to juries.” https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-seriously/#easy-footnote-bottom-18-19 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasona... The term is quite literally meaningless to some people yet: “In one case, a jury asked for a “layman’s” explanation of “reasonable doubt,” and an appellate court said the trial judge acted properly by simply rereading the original charge.” I could go on, but instead I am going to simply ask you for some demonstration as to why you think it is commonly applied.
        lhnz 3y ago
        > Yet you made no reference to it in your poorly executed attack. I am not attacking you and I did make direct reference to this. You wrote: > In practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. > Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict > people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. > They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” I wrote: > While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim > that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt > is a sweeping statement. You then wrote: > It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. I then wrote: > Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't > contain any evidence. It's correct that you didn't support the claim. Your own evidence didn't substantiate your claim, it directly refuted it. You posted a Kalven-Zeisel study comparing the decision-making processes and outcomes of judges and juries in trials which concluded that judges and juries generally agree on verdicts in a high percentage of cases (78%). In fact, it is stated that "when they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases—a net leniency rate of 16%". The study that you've given me shows that when the jury and judge disagree, the jury is more lenient than the judge. This directly refutes your subsequent claim that "Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal”" and indicates that the jury err on the side of reasonable doubt rather than ignore it. The article you have subsequently posted is about the interpretations and articulation of what "reasonable doubt" means to juries. It does not substantiate any claims about "reasonable doubt" being generally ignored by juries or make any claims about them being more likely to convict. It's conclusions are about how "reasonable doubt" might be better communicated or understood.

by lhnz 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.

lhnz 3y ago
Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't contain any evidence. You haven't substantiated your claim.
- Retric 3y ago
  My statements didn’t included citations but my argument did reference multiple studies and post verdict interviews, a subtle difference. Here’s a quote for my 3/4 agree, 5x more likely to convict when they disagree: “ The judge and jury in the Kalven-Zeisel survey of 3,500 criminal cases agreed in 78% of the cases on whether or not to convict. When they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases” https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/jury-decisions-vs-judges-decisions/ https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psycholog... Feel free to look up some more, there’s some variation here.
  - lhnz 3y ago
    The claim you made which I referred to as a sweeping statement was that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt. This study you cite is not relevant to that claim.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Yet you made no reference to it in your poorly executed attack. How about just a baseline do juries even understand what it means? “Numerous appellate courts have cautioned trial judges not to explain the reasonable doubt standard to juries.” https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-seriously/#easy-footnote-bottom-18-19 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/taking-beyond-a-reasona... The term is quite literally meaningless to some people yet: “In one case, a jury asked for a “layman’s” explanation of “reasonable doubt,” and an appellate court said the trial judge acted properly by simply rereading the original charge.” I could go on, but instead I am going to simply ask you for some demonstration as to why you think it is commonly applied.
      - lhnz 3y ago
        > Yet you made no reference to it in your poorly executed attack. I am not attacking you and I did make direct reference to this. You wrote: > In practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. > Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict > people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. > They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” I wrote: > While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim > that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt > is a sweeping statement. You then wrote: > It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. I then wrote: > Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't > contain any evidence. It's correct that you didn't support the claim. Your own evidence didn't substantiate your claim, it directly refuted it. You posted a Kalven-Zeisel study comparing the decision-making processes and outcomes of judges and juries in trials which concluded that judges and juries generally agree on verdicts in a high percentage of cases (78%). In fact, it is stated that "when they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases—a net leniency rate of 16%". The study that you've given me shows that when the jury and judge disagree, the jury is more lenient than the judge. This directly refutes your subsequent claim that "Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal”" and indicates that the jury err on the side of reasonable doubt rather than ignore it. The article you have subsequently posted is about the interpretations and articulation of what "reasonable doubt" means to juries. It does not substantiate any claims about "reasonable doubt" being generally ignored by juries or make any claims about them being more likely to convict. It's conclusions are about how "reasonable doubt" might be better communicated or understood.