Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephencanon | Hacker News Reader

For anyone who doesn't know what "Woodward" refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case

Stuff like this terrifies me:

"In the days following the verdict it emerged that the jury had been split about the murder charge, but those who had favoured an acquittal were persuaded to accept a conviction."

I just don't understand it. How can a person serving on a jury, with another person's life in their hands, be "persuaded to accept a conviction" when they don't actually believe the defendant is guilty?

Watch 12 Angry Men backwards.

That's an awesome comment. What a disturbing movie that would be.

Funny you bring it up, because from a Bayesian perspective, the main character makes some pretty specious arguments and the final choice to not convict is probably wrong; see http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/11/odds-again-ba... and the excerpts from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... ("Was He Guilty as Charged? An alternative narrative based on the circumstantial evidence from '12 Angry Men'", Vidmar et al) in http://studiolo.cortediurbino.org/how-useful-is-bayesianism/

Have you ever sat on a jury? Unless all 12 people start in unanimous agreement, then some people are probably going to have to be persuaded to change their mind. This is intentionally part of the process; it's how the system is supposed to work.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the way it's worded makes me think that they never changed their mind about the innocence of the defendant, but were simply persuaded to vote against what they believed to be true.

I'm perfectly fine with someone starting out thinking the defendant is innocent and then later changing their minds to thinking the defendant is guilty. I'm very much against anyone thinking the defendant is innocent but voting to convict due to peer pressure or whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com