The validity of Juries in Trials

[Eddie Van Helsing]

A lot of prosecutors will reject you if you have even heard of jury nullification! The system is so bizarre.

Of course they will. Be cynical for a minute and imagine that you're a prosecutor who wants to be DA, and eventually run for elected office. Say you want to be a state governor, or the Mayor of New York, or a Senator. One of the qualities you'll use in your campaign is your tendency to be tough on crime. How will you prove that you're tough on crime? By racking up one conviction after another. Do you really want a cynical bastard like me on one of your juries, when I know I have the right to refuse to convict for any reason or for no reason at all? Of course not. You want a nice, obedient jury pool who will only judge the evidence, and not the law itself.

The solution, therefore, is to lie during voir dire and pretend that you have either never heard of jury nullification, or are opposed to it.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

Even with a professional jury, I think the defendant should have the right to know that.

The problem with demanding that a jury explain or justify its verdict is that it leaves the jury open to reprisal from the government should the government be displeased with the verdict.

[Formless]

Give me a judge any day. No juries, not even professional ones. Don't ever trust any system where the decision making process takes place behind closed doors and have a 'yes/no' result without informing you why it's yes or no, and is done purely out of centuries old tradition that refuses to change. At least a judge has to say why he is doing what he's doing.

Voting happens behind closed doors. Considering the role jury nullification is supposed to play in the american legal system, does it not make sense to grant jurors who use it some form of protection against reprisal by the government or society when they refuse to hand over the a politically correct verdict?

[Stofsk]

lol reprisal

How is it any different than juries rushing to give interviews to the media straight after the court case has concluded? I'm talking about requiring them to give a reason for their decision, to make them accountable. Hell where I am, it's a criminal offence to ask a juror why they made the decision they did. Not even a judge can ask them. The only way you can know is if they freely offer that information. It's taken as blind faith that the jury will deliberate in good faith and use proper reasoning and not use inadmissable reasoning. But nobody knows what goes on inside of a jury room, and more to the point nobody wants to know - except the accused, who is on trial after all.

[Temujin]

The whole jury selection process in America is bizarre. Apparently lawyers can ask questions of the jury to find out what their level of education is, what their understanding is of what is required of them, whether they have any prejudices or preconceived notions etc. Here, you might get a job description if you're lucky, but you can't actually question them. It makes the challenge system here a goddamn joke.

EDIT: Yeah Temujin, I know. It's just that juries are an institution that have existed for centuries, they're not going to change them. That might actually imply the system doesn't work! Can't have that.

Jello Biafra had a great bit on his second spoken word album about this. He was describing the trial him and the rest of the Dead Kennedy's went through over their Frankenchrist album. It really lays out just how ludicrous the whole system is.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

lol reprisal

Sorry. Living in the USA has made me just a little paranoid when it comes to the government.

[Temujin]

Even with a professional jury, I think the defendant should have the right to know that.

The problem with demanding that a jury explain or justify its verdict is that it leaves the jury open to reprisal from the government should the government be displeased with the verdict.

In my system, with a professional jury, they effectively would be part of the government. However, if we're completely reinventing the system (which it ought to be), we could just make them immune from such reprisal by law.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

However, if we're completely reinventing the system (which it ought to be), we could just make them immune from such reprisal by law.

We could, but would that immunity cover social reprisals? Can we count on the government to honor the guarantee of immunity for professional jurors?

[Formless]

Even with a professional jury, I think the defendant should have the right to know that.

The problem with demanding that a jury explain or justify its verdict is that it leaves the jury open to reprisal from the government should the government be displeased with the verdict.

In my system, with a professional jury, they effectively would be part of the government. However, if we're completely reinventing the system (which it ought to be), we could just make them immune from such reprisal by law.

That would be the best way of doing it, IMO. If they make continued mistakes or violate their code of ethics, then the professional organization that hires them can deal with the problem. Of course, dealing with social stigma is much harder... but I suppose that in the few cases where that would come into play there really is no easy way out.

Judges of course are not only under pay by the government, they're elected officials. Not a good position to be in if you distaste the status quo.

[Temujin]

We could, but would that immunity cover social reprisals? Can we count on the government to honor the guarantee of immunity for professional jurors?

I don't see why not.

But then I'm for changing quite a few things about both the government and society, and radically so in some cases.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

But then I'm for changing quite a few things about both the government and society, and radically so in some cases.

I used to be, but it's harder to debug a country than it is to debug an application. How the hell would you do regression testing?

[Elfdart]

Here's some of the notable threads where Professional Juries were discussed. Was gonna post these earlier but the search function kept crapping out.

Why is trial by jury a good thing?

More Important: Jury Duty or Voting?

Jury Duty Sucks Ass

The Logic and Morality of Trials by Jury

Funny you should bring up previous threads. In the last one where I posted, I asked if there was any evidence that trial by jury performed any worse than trial by judge. Thanas gave some stats from the German system but that was about it.

I realize that pretending to be oh so superior to the great unwashed is popular here, but I thought claims were supposed to be backed up with some kind of evidence. So, what evidence is there that juries do worse than judges?

[Cecelia5578]

A lot of prosecutors will reject you if you have even heard of jury nullification! The system is so bizarre.

Of course they will. Be cynical for a minute and imagine that you're a prosecutor who wants to be DA, and eventually run for elected office. Say you want to be a state governor, or the Mayor of New York, or a Senator. One of the qualities you'll use in your campaign is your tendency to be tough on crime. How will you prove that you're tough on crime? By racking up one conviction after another. Do you really want a cynical bastard like me on one of your juries, when I know I have the right to refuse to convict for any reason or for no reason at all? Of course not. You want a nice, obedient jury pool who will only judge the evidence, and not the law itself.

The solution, therefore, is to lie during voir dire and pretend that you have either never heard of jury nullification, or are opposed to it.

Its similar to death penalty cases-if you think the death penalty is abhorrent and you are going through void doire for a capital trial, you have to lie or pretend to be agnostic .

The problem with jury nullification is that it can be used by all sorts of aggrieved groups to get " their" member off for a crime they obviously did commit. Though I'll admit it's tempting for bullshit laws like with drugs.

[Eddie Van Helsing]

The problem with jury nullification is that it can be used by all sorts of aggrieved groups to get " their" member off for a crime they obviously did commit. Though I'll admit it's tempting for bullshit laws like with drugs.

True, but remember William Blackstone's formulation: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". If the use of jury nullification can keep innocent people out of prison, or keep people charged with violating tyrannical laws out of prison, then it should be preserved and used whenever appropriate -- even if it might be abused.

[Thanas]

Funny you should bring up previous threads. In the last one where I posted, I asked if there was any evidence that trial by jury performed any worse than trial by judge. Thanas gave some stats from the German system but that was about it.

[url=https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 1#p3137001]Stats which you gave no reply to, mind you. [/quote]

Which I would ask you to do now.

[Steve]

The problem with jury nullification is that it can be used by all sorts of aggrieved groups to get " their" member off for a crime they obviously did commit. Though I'll admit it's tempting for bullshit laws like with drugs.

True, but remember William Blackstone's formulation: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". If the use of jury nullification can keep innocent people out of prison, or keep people charged with violating tyrannical laws out of prison, then it should be preserved and used whenever appropriate -- even if it might be abused.

You mean like how all those nice white Southerners practiced jury nullification in refusing to convict fellow whites of killing black people (or white people who dared to support the blacks).

[Elfdart]

Funny you should bring up previous threads. In the last one where I posted, I asked if there was any evidence that trial by jury performed any worse than trial by judge. Thanas gave some stats from the German system but that was about it.

Stats which you gave no reply to, mind you.

[fixed the link]

Which I would ask you to do now.

Here's what you came up with:

In 2008, the Bundesgerichtshof (highest federal appellate court) concluded en banc that in a total of 96 cases the courts made an error. In other cases it judged that in 470 cases, the judges had made an error in law. On the other hand, they affirmed the judgement of the court in 62 times en banc and 2428 times in other cases. The problem now comes to comparing them to the american system, as the appeals courts are structured very differently over here in Germany.

How do I reply to such sketchy information? You show 586 overturned convictions. Out of how many cases? What kind of cases were these? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Murder? Rape? Traffic tickets? You don't say.

[Crossroads Inc.]

While I deeply support the concept of a professional Jury, someone whose job it is to know legal precident inside and out for the explicite purpose of not being dupped into playing to emotion... How would you protect them from the reason why Juriors are secret during trials?

If you are a 'professional' jurior, people are bound to find out. What happens when you get asked to jurior for a mob boss or drug lord?

[ShadowDragon8685]

While I deeply support the concept of a professional Jury, someone whose job it is to know legal precident inside and out for the explicite purpose of not being dupped into playing to emotion... How would you protect them from the reason why Juriors are secret during trials?

If you are a 'professional' jurior, people are bound to find out. What happens when you get asked to jurior for a mob boss or drug lord?

Presumably bodyguards 24/7 and Witness Protection (or something just like it) after the trial is complete.

That, or, I dunno, a promise that if any jury members turn up missing or dead or coerced or something, the defendant is automatically found guilty and sentenced to life without parole? (Retroactively applies in the event of a successfully forced acquittal which is later revealed to have been coerced.)

[Knife]

While I deeply support the concept of a professional Jury, someone whose job it is to know legal precident inside and out for the explicite purpose of not being dupped into playing to emotion... How would you protect them from the reason why Juriors are secret during trials?

If you are a 'professional' jurior, people are bound to find out. What happens when you get asked to jurior for a mob boss or drug lord?

You could make a pool of people, say soon to be lawyer or soon to be judges, or even retired lawyers and judges, to do this. They would already know the risks of the job as they are going to either be in it or just got out of it.

[Kanastrous]

It's virtually impossible to find out the identities of every person involved in the MPAA ratings assignments. I bring that up because if their identities can be so effectively protected it ought to be possible to do the same for people involved with something genuinely useful and important, like professional jury service...

[ShadowDragon8685]

It's virtually impossible to find out the identities of every person involved in the MPAA ratings assignments. I bring that up because if their identities can be so effectively protected it ought to be possible to do the same for people involved with something genuinely useful and important, like professional jury service...

Virtually impossible for you and a Google Search, perhaps. I imagine that if, for whatever reason, organized crime wanted to find out the identity of everyone involved in the MPAA ratings assignments and was willing to spread around the appropriate resources to do so, they'd be able to find it out. Though Google may be the most powerful tool in the modern information-location arsenal, it's role is like a combination of duct tape and WD-40. There are problems that require more than duct tape and WD-40; not many, but when they come up you can and do have other things to rely upon.

[Kanastrous]

Virtually impossible for me as a 20-year industry professional, with no need to resort to Google since I can resort to contacts with people in my own business. Virtually impossible for the producers of This Film is Not Yet Rated, who admittedly did not throw mob money at the problem but made very little headway after months of research and collaboration by people more intimately involved. Those people's identities are very deliberately and carefully protected, although since essentially it's private business doing the protecting they're probably more effective at it than a government entity would be.

[Thanas]

How do I reply to such sketchy information? You show 586 overturned convictions. Out of how many cases? What kind of cases were these? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Murder? Rape? Traffic tickets? You don't say.

*Sigh*

newest version

2950 cases in total
all criminal cases (felonies and misdemeanors)
In 69 cases complete overturning of the lower court judgement
in 343 cases it was partially overturned
In 91 cases the plaintiffs decided to withdraw
In all other cases judgement was maintained in full.

Better now?

[Alyrium Denryle]

How do I reply to such sketchy information? You show 586 overturned convictions. Out of how many cases? What kind of cases were these? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Murder? Rape? Traffic tickets? You don't say.

*Sigh*

newest version

2950 cases in total
all criminal cases (felonies and misdemeanors)
In 69 cases complete overturning of the lower court judgement
in 343 cases it was partially overturned
In 91 cases the plaintiffs decided to withdraw
In all other cases judgement was maintained in full.

Better now?

So we have:

2.3% overturned in total

11.6% partially overturned. What does it mean to be partially overturned? Remanded to the lower court for retrial?

3.08% where the plaintiffs (those who brought the appeal?) decided they had no case and withdrew?

Do you happen to have access to US stats for comparison? I can run statistical tests (Using a poisson distribution) on the data, also, are there relevant differences in our appeals process which man impact the outcome and reflect difference in appellate outcome? For example, is the legal standard for an appeal higher or more difficult to obtain in the US vs the German system?

It really is nice having you around because you have worked in both systems