Hacker News Reader

Comment by Faark | Hacker News Reader

An angry and easily manipulable lynch mob arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me.

But more seriously, the jury system also has serious flaws. I'd guess its bias towards existing norms. Bias against minorities in the jury pool. And its hard enough for us not accidentally trap into social media echo chambers. I doubt i'd notice attempts to personally manipulate me by a well funded defense (even without FB-like info about me). At the same time, a public defender wont have the resources to even try.

Guess "no free lunch" applies to legal systems as well. So far we haven't found an optimal system, at least.

View on HN

> An angry and easily manipulable lynch mob arbitrarily deciding my fate? That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me.

You mean a bunch of random people who have no vested interest in the trial's outcome, and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you in a premeditated fashion, vs. someone in a clear, long-term position of power that makes for an easy target of bribery, blackmail, or corrupt nepotism? You would seriously prefer that?

Centralization of power should generally not be preferred.

> You mean a bunch of random people who have no vested interest in the trial's outcome, and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you in a premeditated fashion

This is not how juries are formed. The parties can refuse jurors and you can refuse yourself if you are chosen.

I fail to see how this negates anything in that passage that you quoted. In what way can the jury be stacked for or against you, premeditatively?

There's loads of scenarios like that. All white jury against a black defendant comes to mind(or all black against white or any other combination you can think of). There's also plenty of research showing that juries are more likely to be sympathetic if you are attractive or someone they can identify with, with unattractive people/people from other social classes getting worse verdicts for the same crime.

That's not to say that judges do not exhibit such biases, but once again - they should be trained specifically against that. There is no such training or expectation on the juries. And yes, of course juries are asked "do you have any bias against this person" but I don't believe for a second that actually works.

Nothing you've listed is premeditated. Jury candidate selection is random, so premeditation is literally impossible unless the candidate selection process itself is compromised.

Certainly you can introduce bias in the jury vetting process, but that's what your defense attorney is for.

Well in that case judge selection also can't be premeditated since you get a random judge, no?

A small number of judges in a given region to corrupt or coerce, but still doable. Can't say the same for jury candidate selection.

Furthermore, your defense attorney has the opportunity to filter out jurors that have bias against their client. Not so for judges.

randomly selected how? By the order a $9 an hour secretary enters stuff into an excel spreadsheet? In some places yes. Even if it is random(normal case)...random selection of which old rich jaded PHD holding white guy you get? In many places yes.

In the UK system juries are selected randomly, and there is essentially no selection*

Nothing like the American system, where the lawyers can go through 250 candidates to choose 12 jurors, letting them choose the race, gender, education and class composition of the jury.

*Challenges are possible, such as if the random selection procedure wasn't followed properly or if a juror knows people involved, but it's very unusual.

Lawyers in America do not choose jurors.

They exclude jurors.

Big difference.

Each side -- depending on the state and level of court -- gets a certain number of premptory challenges; that is, they can exclude N jurors without giving a reason.

After that, the only way to exclude a juror is to prove to the Judge that the juror is biased.

I guess as a programmer it makes far far far more sense to me that the person deciding my fate is a professional who has to follow a rule book, rather than a bunch of random people who act on their own emotions and who don't have to know anything about the law. If the prosecution presents them with an emotional argument that makes them feel I am guilty, they will vote that way - and I'd hope the judge can't be swayed that easily.

That's a hilariously naive view of judges. Judges totally have emotional and political motivations, and a huge amount of discretion. It's less "following a rule book" and more "trying to squeeze this scenario to fit the box I think it belongs in". If you think adjudication is anything like running a computer program you're dead wrong.

One of my favorite lines about judges is: "it's the responsibility of every person to know the law, except trial judges, who simply have to consider the arguments presented and have appellate courts to set them straight"

You realize that some judges are elected by the general public right? If they won their election on a hang 'em high, and let god sort 'em out kind of platform then guess what they're gonna do? Hang 'em high. Because if they don't they'll loose their job next election. They can literally loose their job for caring too much about whether the accused is actually guilty. This is one of the reasons why we have a problem with over aggressive prosecutors and police, because they, and/or their bosses, are basically politicians who often have much stronger incentives to appear tough than to be fair or effective. If you want to think of it in programming terms, imagine working at a place that does performance reviews and promotions based on LOC generated. That is the judicial system in some states.

> who have no vested interest[..], and so can't be gamed or stacked for or against you

But that is not true. An attorney will try that, while someone on a jury might not even be aware his believe in a nuclear family is used to paint the victim as a slut. Being aware of your own biases and noticing others trying to abuse them will require education and training. Random citizens won't have the time for that. A professional judge (should) take that time.

Do you take you medical advice from random citizens as well, since it is harder for the pharmacy industry to influence them? I'd want to avoid corruption. Transparency helps, but comes with its own issues... if at all possible. I do want a system that avoids centralized power as much as possible but still lets trained experts do the job. There's got to be a better balance.

> An attorney will try that, while someone on a jury might not even be aware his believe in a nuclear family is used to paint the victim as a slut. Being aware of your own biases and noticing others trying to abuse them will require education and training.

So? That's what the jury selection process is for. Your defense should exclude jurors with such obvious biases.

> Do you take you medical advice from random citizens as well, since it is harder for the pharmacy industry to influence them?

Except I'm not beholden to only a single doctor. You are beholden to a single judge, and you don't get a say which judge tries you.

It depends where you live. I've sat on a jury in a wealthy urban area in the UK, and I'm happy to say my fellow jurors had excellent critical thinking skills. Each of us had different expertise which we could contribute.

The system worked exactly as intended. Because jurors are paid almost no money to be there, I had a strong feeling that I didn't want to live with the guilt of sending a person to prison unless they were completely guilty and completely deserving of it.

While a judge will usually act fairly, a jury has a selfish incentive to actively look for ways to avoid sending someone to prison.

I don't think juries are a good solution everywhere. The UK does not have the remnants of racial segregation that the US does; racialism is endemic in US thought patterns. Additionally, the average person where I live is university educated. For that reason, I feel that every defendant should be given the option of a bench trial.

What makes you think a jury is by definition "angry and easily manipulable"? This says a lot more about your view of humanity and yourself than it does jury trials.

Yes, i do believe individual humans are way less perfect agents than some free will devotees make them out to be. Making good decisions is expensive... requires both time and prior knowledge/influences. Something someone forced to do jury duty is unlikely to bring. They spend their resources to be experts in other fields.

Btw, if you wanted to go into the free will vs formed by society thing: The reason parents tell their children to "work hard" and "be responsible for them self" is this being an effective influence. Such is necessary by society to provide for people to become better individuals. I know it sounds contradictory at first.

But your argument is also applicable to judges. There's nothing in legal training that makes people magically superior to "normies", incapable of error and so on.

Meanwhile someone forced to do jury duty is gonna spend the time there whether they like it or not, so there's also no motivation to _not_ try to make good decisions. It won't save any time.

> That feels more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me.

Except when the arbitrator has a grudge against you (maybe personally, maybe more generically - racially, ethnically, etc., maybe he just read a hit piece in the newsletter and is prejudiced against cases like yours). You can have a chance to sway the mob, but you have no chance against the professional who is out to get you.

To understand American system one has to understand that a lot of things there are designed not to produce best outcome in optimal cases, but to reduce harm in sub-optimal cases. It is meant not to solve cases with maximum ease, but to reduce the incidence of abuse. Of course, since people with power - aka the police, prosecutors judiciary, etc. - are not very interested in reducing their own powers they are actively working to undermine this design. Thus plea bargains, testilying, qualified immunity, blue wall of silence, etc.

> more terrifying than some trained and experience arbitrator with respectable work history, to me.

Roy Moore was a judge. Think of that. Ousted from the bench, twice, for defying court orders, ignoring the law, and displaying a lack of impartiality. This guys thinking was basically "I don't have to follow the rules, because God tells me what's right." And he was a judge for a number of years.

Now look at this video of a recent trump judicial nominee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-zvNnFjk3Q

He couldn't even answer basic legal questions, and admits to have never tried a case in court. I believe he dropped out of the process. But others have gone on to be judges, with only slightly better credentials.

So having a judge decide is no guarantee of a fair outcome. Juries exist for a reason. They aren't perfect, and nothing ever will be.

Yeah, the US judge selection process seems especially bad. Here in germany the issue of partisan judges comes up rarely, at least. I wonder why. Maybe that has to do with the highly partisan US politics, thanks to the US FPTP voting system practically allowing only 2 opposing parties. Hell, don't you even elect some judges in the same way?!

Also seems like we have a somewhat high bar that should filter the worst people... you need a 4 year legal education and after that have an up to 5 year trial period til you got a life long position.

Jury selection does absolutely everything possible to weed out jurors who wouldn't be impartial. Also the jury doesn't decide the punishment, the jury only determines if the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com