Comment by MichaelGG | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MichaelGG | Hacker News Reader

This mostly shows off the silliness of the jury system. Why on earth does anyone think grabbing 12 randoms is gonna somehow lead to proper application of justice? I could see it when the US Founders may have thought it'd be other well-educated folks like themselves - it's a good check (if that's what they indeed intended, I don't know). Why would we think untrained folks are going to do a good job figuring out complex things and properly weighting evidence? Courts already have an issue with not understanding Bayes; adding to it by bringing in even less critical people isn't going to help.

The style is weird too. The juries don't seem to be able to do their own investigation; they are passive, relying on a presentation given to them. They should be able to ask questions, inquire about things like the base rate of an occurrence. And things like jury instructions, telling people to disregard info or their biases. This is simply not how human brains work. Let alone untrained ones. We'd be far, far, better off having a panel of judges. And proper review to identify systemic issues.

Someone said "If I'm guilty, I'd much prefer a jury; if I'm innocent I'd prefer judges".

They aren't random. They get vetted by the lawyers for being dim and pliable. An actually random jury would be a vast improvement.

I served on a jury for a murder case last year and think your characterization is not accurate (and only partially because I don't think I'm dim or plyant). Yes the prosecutors were clearly selecting for their own advantage but that doesn't necessarily mean dim or plyant. There's as much reason for one side to select for intelligence and skepticism as there is for the other to select for sheeplike qualities. During deliberation we did have a couple of folks who were imo way to casual hangemhigh types, but the majority were methodical and serious about getting it right and held the rest of us to a high standard. Juries are far from perfect, but the system has some merit.

I just served on a jury for a criminal trial (a police officer tipped off a suspected pedophile about an investigation).

The very first people to go were the idiots who couldn't string a sentence together. After that it was anyone who expressed the slightest anti-cop sentiment. The judge didn't even make the lawyers waste blackballs on them, she just summarily dismissed them for cause. The jury was two software engineers, a contractor, a pastor, some stay-at-home moms, a mechanic, a teacher and a geologist.

That's not enough though. Surely they should be vetted for having some knowledge in the field in which the alleged crime was committed?

Some case of computer-based financial fraud for example and the jury should be made up of people with qualifications and experience in those fields.

America optimizes for resilience against an oppressive government in some potential future and for that sacrifices a lot of things in the present.

I don't think that's even remotely sensible, but it seems to be part of America's cultural DNA.

The American system was set up based on the real-life experiences of a group of humans who lived under an oppressive government. The "cultural DNA" recognizes that oppression is a natural state for authority and so what we attempt to optimize for, with varying degrees of success, is power federation.

This is not some abstract bullshit we use to justify arming ourselves. Very real suffering happens when power is consolidated with no checks, and the notion of trail-by-jury federates power in a very real way. Your opinion of the sensibility of this is not really a factor, to be honest.

The gold standard was once seen in the same terms- a necessary check on government power. It was supported by economic theory, moral principle, and countless examples of currency disasters in the absence of the gold standard. But eventually we got rid of the gold standard and very few economists want it back.

Even a system as old and battle-proven as trial by jury is not necessarily the best possible system today. Personally, I think it is still a good system, but that questioning it is still worthwhile.

You're missing key elements of History, which is skewing your perception of what motivated the events around the gold standard. I suggest you read about the crash of 1921.

It's not like trial by jury is an American invention. Like many other ex-colonies, the US basically kept the common-law legal system it inherited from English rule. Oddly enough, people who grumble most loudly about the malign influence of 'big government' seem to lean heavily (albeit often unconsciously) towards a civil law system, to the point of sometimes trying to parse Supreme Court cases by the standards of that approach.

Maybe trial by jury used to federate power, but with the current system of selecting only jurors that are "dim and pliable" as another commenter put it, I think this particular constitutional safeguard against power consolidation has been defeated.

Perhaps you are failing to appreciate all the human suffering that occurred for these Enlightenment ideas to come into being and shape the thoughts of the first American legislators.

To think that governments can't become oppressive at the blink of an eye is not only short-sighted but ahistorical.

If you disagree with America's cultural DNA, your best option is to leave the country (honestly).

That "resilience against an oppressive government" has already stopped working, as proven by NSA surveillance, civil assets forfeiture laws, Patriot Act, TPP, TTIP and others.

I have no doubt that the current jury system is highly suboptimal with regard to ascertaining guilt ("guilt" in the legal sense — as it pertains to a specific system of laws).

However, oldmanjay makes a very important point about how positive feedback loops tend to emerge from those who seek power (i.e., those who seek to control others will attempt to use the limited power they have in an effort to secure even more power). The checks and balance system serves the critical role of subverting some of the darker tendencies of human nature.

I'm certain a better solution exists that solves both problems — a system that determines guilt with high accuracy while maintaining resistance against corruption. I am not so certain that such a system will be implemented in the foreseeable future.

Are you proposing that before having jury duty people should be taught how to use bayes rule?

Why should there be a few lessons by someone impartial on the subject matter? At the moment the system relies on expert witnesses who are called by one side or the other with an agenda.

The should be taught what it means for a DNA test to be 99% accurate or at least it shouldn't be out of order for a lawyer to explain that as is currently the case.

I assume the commenter is proposing to not have jurors. There are other kinds of trials. The Germans do it very differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany

In short, they don't have jurors, but a panel of judges. The judges are not passive, as they are in the US. That is, in the US, judges are referees between two opposing sides. In Germany, the judges are active participants, and can inquire and guide the process.

And in most criminal cases there are jurors, called "lay judges".

The court is set up in such a way that at least one lay judge has to concur with a conviction (because of majority rules). So there is also a safety valve where "the common people" can stop oppressive prosecution.

Bayes rule should be taught before handing out highschool diplomas.

Differential calculus, trigonometry, and even geometry can wait. They are interesting topics, but statistics (with bayes) is something that is immediately applicable to typical situations encountered by the average citizen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com