Support NeoGAF

[Walter White Walker]

I haven't put a lot of thought into this subject. On the balance, though, I think if I were innocent I'd want the judge to make the ruling. If I'm guilty I'm going with a jury and counting on enough idiots to see me through.

 

[CHC]

Great episode of Radiolab about this very topic.

Begins with the story of a juror who winds up in hot water for just saying "fuck the law, let's not convict!" and then branches off into other discussions from there.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/null-and-void/

Highly recommended if you're interested in how much power a jury should / does have and sort of what the point of the whole process is.

Great podcast in general though, they always balance multiple perspectives without getting crazy, and the topics are usually fresh and interesting.

 

[Keri]

Wonder what would happen if the jury could not listen to or see defendants in person, but had to get all details of the trial by reading a transcript or hearing an audio recording that changes the voices of those involved. Also remove information like race unless it's relevant to the case, such as hate crimes.

I get the desire for this, but it would make it impossible for the jury to make credibility determinations, in cases where it's one persons word against another. You have to see someone testify and hear their voice, to try to pick up on cues that indicate lying. (Like, if someone is sweating and getting uncomfortable under a series of questions). If you only make the jury blind to the Defendant, then the accuser has an obvious advantage. If you make the jury blind to both, then they're left just reading contradictory statements: "X says Y robbed him." "Y says he did not rob X." You remove the chance for race to play a factor in their decisions, but it would also take away a juries ability to consider other, relevant factors.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

American juries so often seem to arrive at really racist verdicts

I think this is a case of people not seeing the comparative. Suppose America used trial-by-panel-of-judges. Judges are: more likely to be white than the general population, more likely to be old than the general population, more likely to be straight than the general population, more likely to be Republican than the general population, more likely to be wealthy than the general population - there's a frankly staggering pool of biases there, and it seems to me very unlikely that the results would actually be less racist given that the demographic pool of judges is far more likely to be inclined to racism than the demographic pool of juries.

As a minority, you're more likely to be convicted by a judge than a jury (Hersch & Viscusi, 2001), which I think goes against a lot of people's expectations.

 

[RustyNails]

Absolutely the worst system. Juries are fickle and subject to lawyers showboating and appealing to emotion, rather than cold hard facts. Judges are not perfect either but I doubt if they can be swayed by bullshit.

 

[Yaphett Kotto]

You should watch the jury selection episode of The People vs OJ Simpson, for an extreme and dramatized example of this.

Great example even though it is an extreme one, but a good handful of cop shooting cases work too for a couple of reasons.

I like the alternative to this being how Germany has multiple judges instead of a jury for cases. People who know the law should be the ones making the decision.

 

[Damaniel]

I'd personally prefer to be tried by a single judge (or perhaps a small group of no more than 3) with an understanding of the underlying technical details of the case. It's not nice to say, but most jurors are either incompetent, or are too willing to let emotion override analysis of evidence.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Juries are usually full of dumb people who don't care what the law says.

The reason this is better than the judge, who does know what the law says, is that Judges are generally either appointed politically or run in political campaigns. They don't care what the law says either and predictably rule in ways that reflect their political leaning.

 

[Mael]

A jury of random judges seems to be kind of "happy" compromise...then again some judges are elected in the US...
That's one of the dumbest thing you can do outside of the whole jury thing.

 

[Big-E]

I think if I was guilty, I would want a jury. If innocent, I would want a judge. If you are guitly, your one out is a plea to emotion.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think if I was guilty, I would want a jury. If innocent, I would want a judge. If you are guitly, your one out is a plea to emotion.

We obviously don't know the 'real' situation other than the verdict that actually was reached, but using statistical sampling comparing like-for-like cases, you should never want a judge. They are consistently more likely to convict in every case than juries, and they are also more racist and sexist in the bias of their verdicts than jury verdicts are.

 

[family_guy]

I get the desire for this, but it would make it impossible for the jury to make credibility determinations, in cases where it's one persons word against another. You have to see someone testify and hear their voice, to try to pick up on cues that indicate lying. (Like, if someone is sweating and getting uncomfortable under a series of questions). If you only make the jury blind to the Defendant, then the accuser has an obvious advantage. If you make the jury blind to both, then they're left just reading contradictory statements: "X says Y robbed him." "Y says he did not rob X." You remove the chance for race to play a factor in their decisions, but it would also take away a juries ability to consider other, relevant factors.

In such a situation, if there's no physical evidence that Y robbed X, then it should be in Y's favor. Y doesn't even have to testify if they don't want to. I'm just trying to get more to a fact-driven trial process, rather than people making decisions based on gut feelings without evidence to support it.

 

[SeanC]

People are stupid and easily manipulated so I think juries as a whole are incredibly flawed.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I think this is a case of people not seeing the comparative. Suppose America used trial-by-panel-of-judges. Judges are: more likely to be white than the general population, more likely to be old than the general population, more likely to be straight than the general population, more likely to be Republican than the general population, more likely to be wealthy than the general population - there's a frankly staggering pool of biases there, and it seems to me very unlikely that the results would actually be less racist given that the demographic pool of judges is far more likely to be inclined to racism than the demographic pool of juries.

As a minority, you're more likely to be convicted by a judge than a jury (Hersch & Viscusi, 2001), which I think goes against a lot of people's expectations.

Well, that sucks.

Guess there is no feasible way to a fair justice system in America because of all the racism :/

 

[Heroman]

Go on...

We would be in deliberations for years.