Hacker News Reader

Comment by emodendroket | Hacker News Reader

Relying exclusively on bench trials seems unappealing to me (and I guess to James Madison, who enshrined the right of trial by jury in the Constitution) because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might have.

Clearly the US system is far from perfect but I don't think getting rid of juries would make it better.

Also, in practice, judges make rulings on things outside their expertise too.

View on HN

"because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might have."

Practically, united states of america have biggest incarceration rate in the world, one of the most expensive legal systems (if not most expensive) and quite long sentences compared to other western countries. Jury nullification is basically never used and majority of jury members don't know about it.

I am not saying that other countries have flawless awesome court system, definitely not. But I have yet to read something that would convince me that jury is better or at least worth additional expenses.

You're right the US has a huge incarceration rate, but jury trials have nothing to do with this, since in the US trials functionally do not exist. I don't remember the numbers exactly (and they are changing and they differ by state/federal) but something like 1-5% of people thrown in jail actually go to trial.

But wouldn't the fact that trials might be favoring conviction (I'm not saying they do, but just as a hypothesis) also drastically change the outcome of those non-trial cases (mainly plea bargains, I guess)? If I expect to be convicted, I'm more likely to agree to a worse plea bargain.

I've not seen any reason to believe juries are more likely to convict.

That might be true but it was not my point. I was merely arguing that not seeing many cases actually go to trial is not an argument that can be made in this case.

Juries convict, but judges sentence. The incarceration rate is high because of strict sentencing guidelines written in the law and voters electing tough-on-crime judges. Eliminating jury trials would change none of that.

and Legislatures legislate. The strict sentencing guidelines are the result of "Law and Order" laws (both sides of American politics have their favorite targets). I too agree, eliminating jury trials would change none of that.

But making judges appointed rather than elected positions might.

Federal judges, such as the one who will sentence Shkreli, are not elected.

And you think getting rid of juries would help, or at least not make things worse? One of the reasons it's so high is that most cases are resolved as part of the plea system and never go to trial.

Isn't the main issue with a jury that is inherently unpredictable, and some people would prefer taking a decent plea over a bad verdict? People that aren't guilty shouldn't be forced to take a plea because the alternative could be worse. That is just wrong in every single way.

I agree that the use of plea bargains in the system today is deeply troubling. But getting rid of juries doesn't help. You still have a situation where the prosecutor can tell you your choices are going to jail for two years or taking your chances in court and maybe going away for decades, and you still have the inadequacies of the public defender system. The jury system is one of the parts of the system least in need of reform.

Which happens because of power prosecutors have (ability to decide charge which makes all the difference - plea can make difference between a year and risk of 30 years in prison) which has little to do with jury vs judge. Majority of defendants deciding that they don't want to risk (or cant afford) a day in court is not an argument for that system.

It is a refutation of the argument that juries are bad because the US has a lot of people in jail, though.

His argument was that juries prevent "arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification". There is nothing observable that would confirm that.

They don't do that, they prevent pretty much nothing.

It says nothing one way or the other because the system isn't being used in those cases.

Put simply, if you want to make claims about whether jury trials or bench trials put more people in jail wrongfully by citing US incarceration data you have to somehow contend with the fact that the vast majority of cases don't go to a trial of any kind. Or at least have an argument as to why switching to bench trials would change that circumstance.

The rate in not because of juries (most cases end up in guilty pleas anyway). It is 90% war on drugs and 10% "tough on crime" mentality which emphasizes punitive aspects and produces thing like mandatory minimal sentences which do not allow to treat things on by case basis. But mostly it's war on drugs.

I think at the very least there should be some kind of juror training process. You'd still tap people from the general public, but these people could maybe serve up to 5 year terms where being a juror is their full time job for that time period, they're trained in advance, they go through some kind of testing period, maybe shadow a couple other juries, and then they go on to serve on real juries. Obviously this would be a paid position much like a postal employee.

Besides being extremely disruptive to jurors' lives, you also have many of the same problems of an all-judge system (people becoming too close to prosecutors and wanting to the rule the "right" way, etc.) without the mitigation provided by the bar and full legal training.

Seemingly free and "just" governments have done much more "disruptive" things in the past, so there is precedent. E.g. Conscription and mandatory military training.

Edit: Typo.

So what? Does that make it a good idea?

I'm a Libertarian, so I'd say No. But my point was that government has in the past done things that have been highly disruptive to their citizens' time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com