5 ms·

It exposes jurors to the risk of harassment, intimidation and violence, both during and after the case, from people who don't like their verdict. And there will

It exposes jurors to the risk of harassment, intimidation and violence, both during and after the case, from people who don't like their verdict. And there will always be one side who does not like their verdict. It puts them in the position where they have to consider their personal safety when they make a verdict, rather than just the evidence presented. A juror shouldn't be thinking "which verdict is less likely to get me killed?" when they're making a decision.

jMyles 12y ago
Violence is rightly against the law; we're all OK with that I think. However, I do want a juror to think, "which verdict is likely to subject me to social ostracization?" I don't see anything wrong with that. Otherwise, the powerful can always force a mistrial with no consequences.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > However, I do want a juror to think, "which verdict is likely to subject me to social ostracization?" I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact that it tends to increase the incentive for juries to act like lynch mobs is one major potential problem with that. (Of course, the actual issue in the source article is about grand juries, not trial juries, so "verdict" isn't properly within the domain of concern -- but the same general principal is at place. Do we want juries acting based on the facts properly before them, or do we want them acting as proxy for public trial-by-media? Because the latter is what wanting a juror to think "which verdict is likely to subject me to social ostracization" is asking for.)
  - jMyles 12y ago
    I agree that the desired outcome is for juries to make decisions based on fact and good purpose, but I don't think anonymity helps to achieve this outcome. I think that a neighbor openly questioning the decision or a business deciding to cut off ties with a morally reprehensible actor are more likely to promote good decision making. If anonymity is desirable, why have public trials at all? Anybody can go to a trial and see the jurors' faces, so what difference does it make? If they were to be truly anonymous (ie, not visible), then how do we even know they're real people?

jMyles 12y ago

Violence is rightly against the law; we're all OK with that I think. However, I do want a juror to think, "which verdict is likely to subject me to social ostracization?" I don't see anything wrong with that. Otherwise, the powerful can always force a mistrial with no consequences.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> However, I do want a juror to think, "which verdict is likely to subject me to social ostracization?" I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact that it tends to increase the incentive for juries to act like lynch mobs is one major potential problem with that. (Of course, the actual issue in the source article is about grand juries, not trial juries, so "verdict" isn't properly within the domain of concern -- but the same general principal is at place. Do we want juries acting based on the facts properly before them, or do we want them acting as proxy for public trial-by-media? Because the latter is what wanting a juror to think "which verdict is likely to subject me to social ostracization" is asking for.)
- jMyles 12y ago
  I agree that the desired outcome is for juries to make decisions based on fact and good purpose, but I don't think anonymity helps to achieve this outcome. I think that a neighbor openly questioning the decision or a business deciding to cut off ties with a morally reprehensible actor are more likely to promote good decision making. If anonymity is desirable, why have public trials at all? Anybody can go to a trial and see the jurors' faces, so what difference does it make? If they were to be truly anonymous (ie, not visible), then how do we even know they're real people?