2 ms·

The problem with measuring the accuracy of juries, is what do you measure them against? Whether the person is really guilty? In the general case, you can't actu

The problem with measuring the accuracy of juries, is what do you measure them against? Whether the person is really guilty? In the general case, you can't actually know that. Even for people who are wrongfully convicted, we can't always say the jury made the wrong call. In many of those cases, the conviction is overturned due to new evidence being discovered, or because the police or prosecution wrongly hid exculpatory evidence from the jury, or because the defendant's lawyer was grossly incompetent – in those cases, it is entirely possible the jury made the right call given the evidence actually presented to them, even if it turned out ultimately to be the wrong one.

devmor 3y ago
For this hypothetical comparison process, I imagine that real cases could be used and re-presented with actors in place of the defendants and witnesses?
- rrr_oh_man 3y ago
  What would be the thing you test in this case?
  - pests 3y ago
    If 12 communication jurors vs 12 non communicating jurors make different decisions.
    - skissane 3y ago
      Yes, I'm sure you can design an experiment which shows different jury structures will produce different decisions. But how do you know which of them makes the better decisions?
      - eru 3y ago
        You construct artificial cases where you know the ground truth.
eru 3y ago
> The problem with measuring the accuracy of juries, is what do you measure them against? Whether the person is really guilty? In the general case, you can't actually know that. Yes, in the general case you can't know that. That's why you need to construct artificial cases where you do know. Very similar to getting labelled training data for your machine learning.