4 ms·

That's, just like, your perception, guy. Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? Surely their actions must leak information about thei

That's, just like, your perception, guy. Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution? If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them? Edit: Since you edited after my response: I am not making any accusations. Strange that you assume so. I just don't know enough information about the specifics to make any judgments. That's why I asked the question(s) in the first place.

raldi 12y ago
A jury of one's peers is, by definition, imperfect. However, after studying millennia of history, we as a people have decided that this is still the least bad model yet invented.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  This is completely dodging the (hard?) questions and deflecting to historical actors. Also, I didn't decide anything (and I doubt you did either). This is the system I was born into and it as been operating without my input.
  - raldi 12y ago
    What questions did you have in mind? P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      >What questions did you have in mind? How about the 4-5 I already posted in the direct ancestors of this thread (e.g. the the one you originally responded to [but did not answer]).
      - raldi 12y ago
        > Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? No; I answered that immediately in my first reply. > Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution? That's not actually a question, but even if the answer is yes, that's what I mean about juries being only the least-bad solution we've invented so far. > If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them? One can't. See previous answer.
- Lewton 12y ago
  Legitimate question, does any other country use the "jury of your peers" model? Afaik most european countries don't
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Legitimate question, does any other country use the "jury of your peers" model? The concept originates in another (European, to boot) country -- it comes from the Magna Carta. It is, at a minimum, common among the coutnries whose legal system descends from that of England, which are somewhat numerous.
    - Lewton 12y ago
      Cheers!
alain94040 12y ago
If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules That's why you got down voted: you assumed something, without knowing, and you were completely wrong. Read a jury's instructions just once, and then let us know how basic it sounds then.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  This is why I started with the question, "How difficult is it to understand the rules[?]". I haven't seen the rules posted anywhere, or any real discussion on the rules or how hard they are to follow. Have you? Also, I'm not sure what is wrong with the assumption that jury rules should be "basic", as in, understandable to a jury member. Do you assume that jury instruction should be complex, complicated, and not understandable to a jury member?
  - raldi 12y ago
    The way you phrased the question makes it sound rhetorical. "How difficult is it to understand _______?" is almost always a rhetorical question; if you genuinely want to inquire about the difficulty, you kinda have to bend over backwards to make that clear to readers.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      I guess I just don't see it ("How difficult is it to understand _____?" being a rhetorical question). It sounds like a pretty straightforward and legitimate question to me. Of course, your perceptions may differ.
  - alain94040 12y ago
    A quick Google found the actual jury instructions for this trial: http://www.scribd.com/doc/260138329/Jury-Instructions-for-Ellen-Pao-vs-Kleiner-Perkins#scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/260138329/Jury-Instructions-for-El... 14 pages of fairly dense legalese. How difficult can it be to understand them all?

raldi 12y ago

A jury of one's peers is, by definition, imperfect. However, after studying millennia of history, we as a people have decided that this is still the least bad model yet invented.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
This is completely dodging the (hard?) questions and deflecting to historical actors. Also, I didn't decide anything (and I doubt you did either). This is the system I was born into and it as been operating without my input.
- raldi 12y ago
  What questions did you have in mind? P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    >What questions did you have in mind? How about the 4-5 I already posted in the direct ancestors of this thread (e.g. the the one you originally responded to [but did not answer]).
    - raldi 12y ago
      > Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? No; I answered that immediately in my first reply. > Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution? That's not actually a question, but even if the answer is yes, that's what I mean about juries being only the least-bad solution we've invented so far. > If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them? One can't. See previous answer.
Lewton 12y ago
Legitimate question, does any other country use the "jury of your peers" model? Afaik most european countries don't
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Legitimate question, does any other country use the "jury of your peers" model? The concept originates in another (European, to boot) country -- it comes from the Magna Carta. It is, at a minimum, common among the coutnries whose legal system descends from that of England, which are somewhat numerous.
  - Lewton 12y ago
    Cheers!

alain94040 12y ago

If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules That's why you got down voted: you assumed something, without knowing, and you were completely wrong. Read a jury's instructions just once, and then let us know how basic it sounds then.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
This is why I started with the question, "How difficult is it to understand the rules[?]". I haven't seen the rules posted anywhere, or any real discussion on the rules or how hard they are to follow. Have you? Also, I'm not sure what is wrong with the assumption that jury rules should be "basic", as in, understandable to a jury member. Do you assume that jury instruction should be complex, complicated, and not understandable to a jury member?
- raldi 12y ago
  The way you phrased the question makes it sound rhetorical. "How difficult is it to understand _______?" is almost always a rhetorical question; if you genuinely want to inquire about the difficulty, you kinda have to bend over backwards to make that clear to readers.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    I guess I just don't see it ("How difficult is it to understand _____?" being a rhetorical question). It sounds like a pretty straightforward and legitimate question to me. Of course, your perceptions may differ.
- alain94040 12y ago
  A quick Google found the actual jury instructions for this trial: http://www.scribd.com/doc/260138329/Jury-Instructions-for-Ellen-Pao-vs-Kleiner-Perkins#scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/260138329/Jury-Instructions-for-El... 14 pages of fairly dense legalese. How difficult can it be to understand them all?