As is well known, Jurors are nigh the most important people in any court cases in which they are applied. Their verdict can have dramatic effects on a great many people. That said, they are chosen at random, just names selected by a die off of an electoral role. This leaves the verdict in the hands of a group of people with likely no legal training who often regard Jury Duty as a chore, furthermore, they often have predetermined biases which can influence the case.
Topic: Why should society leave justice to chance?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Saemar is not a wizard, is not fighting on a battlefield and is not casting spells.
Yeah, that is one of the things I loathe about the American courts...
Anyway: I believe that jury duty should be abolished. It is one of the worst ideas ever, since normal people haven't had the education and experience necessary to see through the half-truths both sides produce.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
That isn't entirely true. granted the pool of jurors are chosen at random, However that doesn't mean you are going to make it on the jury. Both the prosecution and defense can axe any juror at any time during the questioning phase.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
A well-educated, qualified, wise individual can be wrong. So can a dozen ignorant individuals. At least with a dozen, the deficiencies & predjudices of a given individual can be corrected; misperceptions can be clarified. (Think The Eumenides, or, if you prefer, 12 Angry Men.) & for that matter, a dozen well-qualified individuals are still capable of misperception & a lack of perspective.
So I guess I'm just not really clear what the alternative would be.
The alternative is obviously a well-funded government-spearheaded AI-based evidence-evaluation cognitive-computing-entity open-sourced for public critique.
I'd actually like to see this happen once our cognitive learning algorithms become more sophisticated.
The alternative is obviously a well-funded government-spearheaded AI-based evidence-evaluation cognitive-computing-entity open-sourced for public critique.
I'd actually like to see this happen once our cognitive learning algorithms become more sophisticated.
More sophisticated algorithms mean fewer people can understand them. (Heck, a simple coin-flipping program in Python would effectively disenfranchise most Americans.) Public critique is a toothless check if the public lacks the learning to exercise it effectively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
More sophisticated algorithms mean fewer people can understand them. (Heck, a simple coin-flipping program in Python would effectively disenfranchise most Americans.) Public critique is a toothless check if the public lacks the learning to exercise it effectively.
How many Americans understand anything going on in the NSA or the NIH or the FDA?
Doesn't mean the situation is ripe for abuse. Not in the slightest.
How many Americans understand anything going on in the NSA or the NIH or the FDA?
Doesn't mean the situation is ripe for abuse. Not in the slightest.
Not understanding matters of policy & not understanding a computer-generated guilty verdict are, I think, of wildly different levels of importance, given the disproportionate effect of the latter on ordinary citizens & pre-existing tensions & issues surrounding the judicial system.
Not understanding matters of policy & not understanding a computer-generated guilty verdict are, I think, of wildly different levels of importance, given the disproportionate effect on ordinary citizens & pre-existing tensions & issues surrounding the judicial system.
Now wait just a minute...
Not knowing the policies behind the kinds of ingredients we are and are not allowed to eat, the kinds of drugs we are and are not allowed to take, the kinds of policies dictating insurance claims for cancer treatments, the kinds of policies that regulate criminal investigations; these are on some kind of wildly lesser level of importance? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Of course these is a psychological effect, a special something that comes with knowing that you will be given a fair shake by people like you, instead of some sophisticated form of artificial neural network. But if it works better, it should be done. We can always window-dress it, if need be.
But we don't trust our fire alarm systems to humans, nor do we trust our fingerprint databases to them. Humans don't deal with large amounts of evidence very well. We have bad memories, form subconscious judgments, are affected by what we ate for breakfast, whether or not we need to pee, whether the juror sitting next to us has body odor. Not to mention the two big ones that stick out in my mind: humans are notoriously emotion-ruled creatures and are notoriously group-think-ridden. All in all, notoriously capable of human error. Let's not forget it. Justice is far from perfect. If we could make it better, even at the expense of feel-good public sentimentality :rolleyes:, I say we go for it.
Not knowing the policies behind the kinds of ingredients we are and are not allowed to eat, the kinds of drugs we are and are not allowed to take, the kinds of policies dictating insurance claims for cancer treatments, the kinds of policies that regulate criminal investigations; these are on some kind of wildly lesser level of importance? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
The difference is, I think, that all of this information is readily available & not terribly esoteric; it's simply a matter of looking it up.
Understanding advanced computer programming is quite a different matter, requiring extensive education, perhaps prohibitively extensive.
Of course these is a psychological effect, a special something that comes with knowing that you will be given a fair shake by people like you, instead of some sophisticated form of artificial neural network. But if it works better, it should be done. We can always window-dress it, if need be.
It only works better insofar as objective evidence (as opposed to, say, witness testimony) is not only present, but unimpeachable; hard evidence can be and often is equivocal. As far as soft evidence goes: how do you calibrate the reliability of a witness or an alibi?
So I guess I don't know what you mean by "works better".
But we don't trust our fire alarm systems to humans, nor do we trust our fingerprint databases to them.
Entirely different. Those are matters of detection & storage, not analysis.
Humans don't deal with large amounts of evidence very well. We have bad memories, form subconscious judgments, are affected by what we ate for breakfast, whether or not we need to pee, whether the juror sitting next to us has body odor. Not to mention the two big ones that stick out in my mind: humans are notoriously emotion-ruled creatures and are notoriously group-think-ridden. All in all, notoriously capable of human error.
The difference is, I think, that all of this information is readily available & not terribly esoteric; it's simply a matter of looking it up.
The policy is relatively simple. The act of actually deciding whether the plan B drug satisfied its clinical testing requirements requires mounds and mounds of testimony and evidence that the ordinary American would find impossible to sort out.
The general principle, the point I'm trying to make, is that the government does stuff its populace doesn't fully understand all the time. And it's for the best. There are still fully adequate checks and balances in place, even if Joe Schmoe can't blow the whistle. Someone else will be able to. This isn't a doomsday, only one person knows the codes (!!!) scenario. Do you think many people could understand the coding intricacies of a voting machine?
It only works better insofar as objective evidence (as opposed to, say, witness testimony) is not only present, but unimpeachable; hard evidence can be and often is equivocal. As far as soft evidence goes: how do you calibrate the reliability of a witness or an alibi?
So I guess I don't know what you mean by "works better".
This is information that is purely conjecture and fully understandable as a source of critique. Computers will obviously be unable to sort through the emotional intricacies that humans will be able to instinctively grasp. If we were to use a real-world example, lie detectors are well-known for their fallibility.
But Bayesian neural networks, combined with the kinds of learning algorithms I'm envisioning would be able to dig much deeper, to do much more. Even so, we would of course wait until the empirical evidence presents itself in the form of data on unfair convictions and the like.
EDIT: You could also allow it to run analyses on previous cases. Should have though of that.
Entirely different. Those are matters of detection & storage, not analysis.
To a large degree the detection and storage of data in response to a query is analysis. Present a machine with enough data and a question (which is a simple yes/no, remember) to answer and the answer you receive has behind it as much if not more analysis than that which would be gathered by locking the twelve smartest men in the world together for a hundred years.
Hemant Lakhani was convicted over the objection of one of the jurors because the other jurors threatened to keep her in deliberation so she could not move into her new house. Under a tremendous amount of pressure and stress from the other eleven jurors, she switched her decision from not guilty to guilty in a little less than seven hours (in her own words, the accused didn't really mean anything to her), and a man was sentenced to a lengthy sentence at an old age with little chance for parole.
I don't mean to generalize from this anecdote. I'm using it to illustrate that there is an element of fallibility. I don't think anything should deny this. And that, eventually, as in many areas of life, computers will be able to more objectively fulfill the role of determining a man's guilt or innocence. If you think that humans are somehow superior in this respect, then you are the type that could believe you can tell the integrity of a man just by looking into his eyes. That is, incredibly naive.
One other problem is that many people approach jury duty (or flee from it, as it were) with some particularly unworthy attitudes or notions about it.
It seems like only those who are too "dumb" to get a robust enough excuse, ever end up actually being compelled into jury duty. Anyone who is smart, finds a way to get out of jury duty - either getting someone to write them a letter of extenuating circumstances so they won't have to bother reporting at all; or making up a bunch of BS to spew during the jury screening/selection process.
Then there are the ones who complain that juries are all too often made up of ignorant unwashed roués who couldn't process evidence if it were on sale at Wal-mart. I guess they may be right, in that only dummies ever actually wind up serving on jury duty, all the smart clever people already excused for one reason or another. With this attitude, it won't surprise you to see why a lot of people are no longer interested in our current system of being judged by our peers; they aren't really "our" peers, after all. Or if they are, God help us.
A third complaint is one from the juries themselves. Some jurors have sought to get more perspective on the case by researching it in the media or the microfiche in the library. Apparently, in that case it was forbidden. The jurors complain they do not understand the case given the material from the trial or courtroom, but are not allowed to be influenced by "outside influences". Probably a well-meaning policy that is being misapplied, it seems like a failure of the jury system that these jurors, either through their own reasoning limits or through the disorganized way in which the information is put in front of them, don't understand fully what is going on and are even more likely to make a decision based on emotion and "gut feeling" rather than weighing the facts and knowing the greater context of the situation. I have not been called up for jury duty yet, but I would feel vastly more comfortable being allowed to read all of the publicly available background on the case before leaning in support of one outcome or the other.
So while groupthink and tendency to subjective and emotionally biased judgment make any jury system less than perfect, I think the public's attitude towards jury duty, jurors, and media coverage conspires to make the system a lot worse than it is, or at least seem a lot worse than it is capable of.
If jury duty is paid, I'm surprised more people do not look into it. Of course, your employer may insinuate he will dismiss or penalize you if you do serve, rather than finding an excuse or accepting a letter he wrote to excuse you. This should be considered harassment of the basest kind and should be prosecutable. That said, if your job culture or personal employment status is so tenuous as to make a single day of jury selection equivalent to termination, you proably were going to get fired soon anyway.
Juries should be free to use any and every publicly-available source of media or historical background information they need to help them understand the evidence, or put it into a larger perspective. That said, more work should be done to weed out potential jurors whose use of that information freedom will lead them to an emotionally biased or highly speculative stance. The juror is, like it or not, one of the more powerful deliberants on the case.
The policy is relatively simple. The act of actually deciding whether the plan B drug satisfied its clinical testing requirements requires mounds and mounds of testimony and evidence that the ordinary American would find impossible to sort out.
The general principle, the point I'm trying to make, is that the government does stuff its populace doesn't fully understand all the time. And it's for the best. There are still fully adequate checks and balances in place, even if Joe Schmoe can't blow the whistle. Someone else will be able to.
I don't want to push this point too far, since it's not my primary objection or even secondary objection, but I do think it would be terribly naive to assert that corruption in the upper echelons of government, especially with regards to policy which can raise profits (like eg: the FDA & pharmaceuticals), is generally kept well in check. As I say, I don't want to push this objection, especially since it is by nature undemonstrable--if the corruption is never caught I can't very well assert it's existence--but I do think that the FDA & friends are perhaps a poor example of a shining beacon of integrity.
This is information that is purely conjecture and fully understandable as a source of critique. Computers will obviously be unable to sort through the emotional intricacies that humans will be able to instinctively grasp. If we were to use a real-world example, lie detectors are well-known for their fallibility.
But Bayesian neural networks, combined with the kinds of learning algorithms I'm envisioning would be able to dig much deeper, to do much more. Even so, we would of course wait until the empirical evidence presents itself in the form of data on unfair convictions and the like.
EDIT: You could also allow it to run analyses on previous cases. Should have though of that.
Full disclosure: My knowledge of computers extends to a) typing and b) making the dirty pictures appear. I know nothing of their intricacies & capabilities.
Nevertheless, I find it inconceivable that any computer at any time would be able to, for instance, determine which piece of conflicting testimony is true between two opposing witnesses, or whether a damning piece of evidence ( ='s gun at the scene, etc) can be explained by a reasonably credible alibi.
Maybe if you could explain how this could work, at least in theory. I understand that since the model does not actually exist, explaining it is somewhat dodgy work.
To a large degree the detection and storage of data in response to a query is analysis. Present a machine with enough data and a question (which is a simple yes/no, remember) to answer and the answer you receive has behind it as much if not more analysis than that which would be gathered by locking the twelve smartest men in the world together for a hundred years.
Once again, though, my claim is that most data presented in your run-of-the-mill trial is equivocal. I may be wrong about this, but I imagine the data presented to a fire alarm is reasonably straightforward.
Hemant Lakhani was convicted over the objection of one of the jurors because the other jurors threatened to keep her in deliberation so she could not move into her new house. Under a tremendous amount of pressure and stress from the other eleven jurors, she switched her decision from not guilty to guilty in a little less than seven hours (in her own words, the accused didn't really mean anything to her), and a man was sentenced to a lengthy sentence at an old age with little chance for parole.
I don't mean to generalize from this anecdote. I'm using it to illustrate that there is an element of fallibility. I don't think anything should deny this. And that, eventually, as in many areas of life, computers will be able to more objectively fulfill the role of determining a man's guilt or innocence. If you think that humans are somehow superior in this respect, then you are the type that could believe you can tell the integrity of a man just by looking into his eyes. That is, incredibly naive.
I hate to repeat myself, but given that a body of evidence is necessarily & always incomplete, & given that quite a large portion of evidence is subjective, & lastly that much objective evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways, I submit that a computer's ability to analyze the evidence is (& will be) extraordinarily fallible, if in markedly different ways than human analysis. I'm not willing to assert without qualification that human analysis is superior, but I don't know that I'm willing to call it inferior, either.
I don't want to push this point too far, since it's not my primary objection or even secondary objection, but I do think it would be terribly naive to assert that corruption in the upper echelons of government, especially with regards to policy which can raise profits (like eg: the FDA & pharmaceuticals), is generally kept well in check. As I say, I don't want to push this objection, especially since it is by nature undemonstrable--if the corruption is never caught I can't very well assert it's existence--but I do think that the FDA & friends are perhaps a poor example of a shining beacon of integrity.
Not a point I'm stressing, at all. Merely that the FDA exists. NASA exists, though not everyone knows rocket science.
I mean, it seems rather ridiculous that they should (be experts) for the government to get involved. How many of us even understand the tax code?
Nevertheless, I find it inconceivable that any computer at any time would be able to, for instance, determine which piece of conflicting testimony is true between two opposing witnesses, or whether a damning piece of evidence ( ='s gun at the scene, etc) can be explained by a reasonably credible alibi.
I'll just refer to a general principle of philosophy, which is that humans are solidly in the realm of the ordinary. We are made of atoms just like everything else. At some point, we will be able to duplicate what we think of now as purely human phenomena. In many ways, we are closer than you think.
I imagine the data presented to a fire alarm is reasonably straightforward.
Actually, the difference between a real fire and a false alarm is pretty intricate, from what I've gleaned from conversations with molecular biologists (admittedly, not industry experts, but experts in neural networks).
It's a long way to go, to be sure, before we can approach an algorithm capable of handling a court case. Sounds almost fantastical. But consider that computers were only produced in their current form 40-50 years ago.
And I think Snoop wins the thread, actually. Some good real-world suggestions. In some sense, I get the feeling that Americans don't really care as much as they profess about the whole concept of a jury of one's peers. The ordinary citizen never really imagines what it would be like to be the defendant in criminal court. In my experience, America has the sort of culture where the "alleged" is added as an afterthought.
The whole "jury of your peers" doesn't sound to good when most of your "peers" are ignorant, stupid, bigotted or any combination of the three.
It's better to leave the judging to...you know, the Judge, the man (or woman) sitting in the highest chair in the room and most likely the most learned and experienced in law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
It's better to leave the judging to...you know, the Judge, the man (or woman) sitting in the highest chair in the room and most likely the most learned and experienced in law.
& it's good, because learned, experienced individuals are (fortunately!) free of any biases whatsoever, & can also be counted on to never err.
msun: I'll leave the technical debate alone for now; I'm wondering, though, what you think of jury nullification.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Hey, it's not a perfect system! Any time humans are involved, we bring human error in the equation. That's why most of the world is so screwed up.
Absolutely. Human error is why I prefer twelve average (or sub-average) individuals to one wise individual. The latter is still subject to the same foibles as the rest of us, but without the need for a unanimous decision, he won't be able or willing to detect & counter his particular biases. The advantage of a group, regardless of its failings, is that each individual has a check on their idiocy.
The whole "jury of your peers" doesn't sound to good when most of your "peers" are ignorant, stupid, bigotted or any combination of the three.
It's better to leave the judging to...you know, the Judge, the man (or woman) sitting in the highest chair in the room and most likely the most learned and experienced in law.
The judge applies the law. But the jury is the decider of fact. The distinction is, I think, as important as it is overlooked. Judges are acknowledged and respected experts in the legal field, but they're no more qualified than you or I to decide what actually happened at the scene of the alleged crime. For whatever expertise is required, courts must (and do) call upon specialists to testify: forensics techs, doctors, art appraisers, or whomever.
EDIT: Ah! Jury nullification. Now there is an interesting question. Is the jury strictly a decider of fact, as I have indicated above, or does it also provide the public a valid means of passing its judgment on the law?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hmm, that is really interesting and I can't say I gave any serious consideration to it! Though I think I've heard of it before. Well, we would most definitely have to find other ways for the public to express their disapproval of certain laws in certain circumstances.
Maybe we could include a jury for the sentencing part of a criminal trial as well as for cases of jury nullification. I think sentencing requires a bit of emotional input as do cases of nullification.
Maybe we could include a jury for the sentencing part of a criminal trial as well as for cases of jury nullification. I think sentencing requires a bit of emotional input as do cases of nullification.
The only problem would be minimum sentencing laws, in states where those exist.
No they're not. The defense specifically scrutinizes each person on the jury panel.
I realize this, and as far as I know, the defence also has a chance to examine potential jury members.
Moving along, I'm not going to offer an opinion on the subject as it feels like bad form to both offer the topic and then debate it (though that's just a weird personal belief of mine). I will however offer some points for discussion.
Many people believe that while the jury may not be the best body to hand down a verdict, neither is a judge, as such officials are often interested in interpreting only the most specific definition of the law. Add to this that as a professional they hear cases, day in, day out and it is possible for a judge to become tired and wish trials over quickly, without giving due consideration. Perhaps a third solution would be appropriate, if Juries are ignorant and unintelligent and Judges tired and interested only in the law, then perhaps a panel of experts in the area specific to the case should be called in. These experts would be able to determine the veracity of claims by themselves and would be able to interpret the law as any person would, using both their conscience/heart and mind.
Topic: Cases should be heard by a panel of independent experts in the field of which the trial is concerned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Saemar is not a wizard, is not fighting on a battlefield and is not casting spells.
Saemar is playing cards.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As is well known, Jurors are nigh the most important people in any court cases in which they are applied. Their verdict can have dramatic effects on a great many people. That said, they are chosen at random, just names selected by a die off of an electoral role. This leaves the verdict in the hands of a group of people with likely no legal training who often regard Jury Duty as a chore, furthermore, they often have predetermined biases which can influence the case.
Topic: Why should society leave justice to chance?
Anyway: I believe that jury duty should be abolished. It is one of the worst ideas ever, since normal people haven't had the education and experience necessary to see through the half-truths both sides produce.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
No they're not. The defense specifically scrutinizes each person on the jury panel.
Same reason you shuffle a Magic deck: to ensure you're not stacking it.
So I guess I'm just not really clear what the alternative would be.
I'd actually like to see this happen once our cognitive learning algorithms become more sophisticated.
Thread won.
More sophisticated algorithms mean fewer people can understand them. (Heck, a simple coin-flipping program in Python would effectively disenfranchise most Americans.) Public critique is a toothless check if the public lacks the learning to exercise it effectively.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Booya!
Doesn't mean the situation is ripe for abuse. Not in the slightest.
Not understanding matters of policy & not understanding a computer-generated guilty verdict are, I think, of wildly different levels of importance, given the disproportionate effect of the latter on ordinary citizens & pre-existing tensions & issues surrounding the judicial system.
Now wait just a minute...
Not knowing the policies behind the kinds of ingredients we are and are not allowed to eat, the kinds of drugs we are and are not allowed to take, the kinds of policies dictating insurance claims for cancer treatments, the kinds of policies that regulate criminal investigations; these are on some kind of wildly lesser level of importance? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Of course these is a psychological effect, a special something that comes with knowing that you will be given a fair shake by people like you, instead of some sophisticated form of artificial neural network. But if it works better, it should be done. We can always window-dress it, if need be.
But we don't trust our fire alarm systems to humans, nor do we trust our fingerprint databases to them. Humans don't deal with large amounts of evidence very well. We have bad memories, form subconscious judgments, are affected by what we ate for breakfast, whether or not we need to pee, whether the juror sitting next to us has body odor. Not to mention the two big ones that stick out in my mind: humans are notoriously emotion-ruled creatures and are notoriously group-think-ridden. All in all, notoriously capable of human error. Let's not forget it. Justice is far from perfect. If we could make it better, even at the expense of feel-good public sentimentality :rolleyes:, I say we go for it.
The difference is, I think, that all of this information is readily available & not terribly esoteric; it's simply a matter of looking it up.
Understanding advanced computer programming is quite a different matter, requiring extensive education, perhaps prohibitively extensive.
It only works better insofar as objective evidence (as opposed to, say, witness testimony) is not only present, but unimpeachable; hard evidence can be and often is equivocal. As far as soft evidence goes: how do you calibrate the reliability of a witness or an alibi?
So I guess I don't know what you mean by "works better".
Entirely different. Those are matters of detection & storage, not analysis.
Which is why unanimity is required.
The general principle, the point I'm trying to make, is that the government does stuff its populace doesn't fully understand all the time. And it's for the best. There are still fully adequate checks and balances in place, even if Joe Schmoe can't blow the whistle. Someone else will be able to. This isn't a doomsday, only one person knows the codes (!!!) scenario. Do you think many people could understand the coding intricacies of a voting machine?
This is information that is purely conjecture and fully understandable as a source of critique. Computers will obviously be unable to sort through the emotional intricacies that humans will be able to instinctively grasp. If we were to use a real-world example, lie detectors are well-known for their fallibility.
But Bayesian neural networks, combined with the kinds of learning algorithms I'm envisioning would be able to dig much deeper, to do much more. Even so, we would of course wait until the empirical evidence presents itself in the form of data on unfair convictions and the like.
EDIT: You could also allow it to run analyses on previous cases. Should have though of that.
To a large degree the detection and storage of data in response to a query is analysis. Present a machine with enough data and a question (which is a simple yes/no, remember) to answer and the answer you receive has behind it as much if not more analysis than that which would be gathered by locking the twelve smartest men in the world together for a hundred years.
Unanimity is helpful, sure. But you're dodging my point: the fallibility remains, and if you don't believe me, listen to this broadcast of a trial in the War on Terror: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=387
Hemant Lakhani was convicted over the objection of one of the jurors because the other jurors threatened to keep her in deliberation so she could not move into her new house. Under a tremendous amount of pressure and stress from the other eleven jurors, she switched her decision from not guilty to guilty in a little less than seven hours (in her own words, the accused didn't really mean anything to her), and a man was sentenced to a lengthy sentence at an old age with little chance for parole.
I don't mean to generalize from this anecdote. I'm using it to illustrate that there is an element of fallibility. I don't think anything should deny this. And that, eventually, as in many areas of life, computers will be able to more objectively fulfill the role of determining a man's guilt or innocence. If you think that humans are somehow superior in this respect, then you are the type that could believe you can tell the integrity of a man just by looking into his eyes. That is, incredibly naive.
It seems like only those who are too "dumb" to get a robust enough excuse, ever end up actually being compelled into jury duty. Anyone who is smart, finds a way to get out of jury duty - either getting someone to write them a letter of extenuating circumstances so they won't have to bother reporting at all; or making up a bunch of BS to spew during the jury screening/selection process.
Then there are the ones who complain that juries are all too often made up of ignorant unwashed roués who couldn't process evidence if it were on sale at Wal-mart. I guess they may be right, in that only dummies ever actually wind up serving on jury duty, all the smart clever people already excused for one reason or another. With this attitude, it won't surprise you to see why a lot of people are no longer interested in our current system of being judged by our peers; they aren't really "our" peers, after all. Or if they are, God help us.
A third complaint is one from the juries themselves. Some jurors have sought to get more perspective on the case by researching it in the media or the microfiche in the library. Apparently, in that case it was forbidden. The jurors complain they do not understand the case given the material from the trial or courtroom, but are not allowed to be influenced by "outside influences". Probably a well-meaning policy that is being misapplied, it seems like a failure of the jury system that these jurors, either through their own reasoning limits or through the disorganized way in which the information is put in front of them, don't understand fully what is going on and are even more likely to make a decision based on emotion and "gut feeling" rather than weighing the facts and knowing the greater context of the situation. I have not been called up for jury duty yet, but I would feel vastly more comfortable being allowed to read all of the publicly available background on the case before leaning in support of one outcome or the other.
So while groupthink and tendency to subjective and emotionally biased judgment make any jury system less than perfect, I think the public's attitude towards jury duty, jurors, and media coverage conspires to make the system a lot worse than it is, or at least seem a lot worse than it is capable of.
If jury duty is paid, I'm surprised more people do not look into it. Of course, your employer may insinuate he will dismiss or penalize you if you do serve, rather than finding an excuse or accepting a letter he wrote to excuse you. This should be considered harassment of the basest kind and should be prosecutable. That said, if your job culture or personal employment status is so tenuous as to make a single day of jury selection equivalent to termination, you proably were going to get fired soon anyway.
Juries should be free to use any and every publicly-available source of media or historical background information they need to help them understand the evidence, or put it into a larger perspective. That said, more work should be done to weed out potential jurors whose use of that information freedom will lead them to an emotionally biased or highly speculative stance. The juror is, like it or not, one of the more powerful deliberants on the case.
I don't want to push this point too far, since it's not my primary objection or even secondary objection, but I do think it would be terribly naive to assert that corruption in the upper echelons of government, especially with regards to policy which can raise profits (like eg: the FDA & pharmaceuticals), is generally kept well in check. As I say, I don't want to push this objection, especially since it is by nature undemonstrable--if the corruption is never caught I can't very well assert it's existence--but I do think that the FDA & friends are perhaps a poor example of a shining beacon of integrity.
Full disclosure: My knowledge of computers extends to a) typing and b) making the dirty pictures appear. I know nothing of their intricacies & capabilities.
Nevertheless, I find it inconceivable that any computer at any time would be able to, for instance, determine which piece of conflicting testimony is true between two opposing witnesses, or whether a damning piece of evidence ( ='s gun at the scene, etc) can be explained by a reasonably credible alibi.
Maybe if you could explain how this could work, at least in theory. I understand that since the model does not actually exist, explaining it is somewhat dodgy work.
Once again, though, my claim is that most data presented in your run-of-the-mill trial is equivocal. I may be wrong about this, but I imagine the data presented to a fire alarm is reasonably straightforward.
I hate to repeat myself, but given that a body of evidence is necessarily & always incomplete, & given that quite a large portion of evidence is subjective, & lastly that much objective evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways, I submit that a computer's ability to analyze the evidence is (& will be) extraordinarily fallible, if in markedly different ways than human analysis. I'm not willing to assert without qualification that human analysis is superior, but I don't know that I'm willing to call it inferior, either.
Not a point I'm stressing, at all. Merely that the FDA exists. NASA exists, though not everyone knows rocket science.
I mean, it seems rather ridiculous that they should (be experts) for the government to get involved. How many of us even understand the tax code?
I'll just refer to a general principle of philosophy, which is that humans are solidly in the realm of the ordinary. We are made of atoms just like everything else. At some point, we will be able to duplicate what we think of now as purely human phenomena. In many ways, we are closer than you think.
Actually, the difference between a real fire and a false alarm is pretty intricate, from what I've gleaned from conversations with molecular biologists (admittedly, not industry experts, but experts in neural networks).
It's a long way to go, to be sure, before we can approach an algorithm capable of handling a court case. Sounds almost fantastical. But consider that computers were only produced in their current form 40-50 years ago.
And I think Snoop wins the thread, actually. Some good real-world suggestions. In some sense, I get the feeling that Americans don't really care as much as they profess about the whole concept of a jury of one's peers. The ordinary citizen never really imagines what it would be like to be the defendant in criminal court. In my experience, America has the sort of culture where the "alleged" is added as an afterthought.
It's better to leave the judging to...you know, the Judge, the man (or woman) sitting in the highest chair in the room and most likely the most learned and experienced in law.
& it's good, because learned, experienced individuals are (fortunately!) free of any biases whatsoever, & can also be counted on to never err.
msun: I'll leave the technical debate alone for now; I'm wondering, though, what you think of jury nullification.
Hey, it's not a perfect system! Any time humans are involved, we bring human error in the equation. That's why most of the world is so screwed up.
I'd trust them more than the average citizens where I live.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Absolutely. Human error is why I prefer twelve average (or sub-average) individuals to one wise individual. The latter is still subject to the same foibles as the rest of us, but without the need for a unanimous decision, he won't be able or willing to detect & counter his particular biases. The advantage of a group, regardless of its failings, is that each individual has a check on their idiocy.
The judge applies the law. But the jury is the decider of fact. The distinction is, I think, as important as it is overlooked. Judges are acknowledged and respected experts in the legal field, but they're no more qualified than you or I to decide what actually happened at the scene of the alleged crime. For whatever expertise is required, courts must (and do) call upon specialists to testify: forensics techs, doctors, art appraisers, or whomever.
EDIT: Ah! Jury nullification. Now there is an interesting question. Is the jury strictly a decider of fact, as I have indicated above, or does it also provide the public a valid means of passing its judgment on the law?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe we could include a jury for the sentencing part of a criminal trial as well as for cases of jury nullification. I think sentencing requires a bit of emotional input as do cases of nullification.
The only problem would be minimum sentencing laws, in states where those exist.
I realize this, and as far as I know, the defence also has a chance to examine potential jury members.
Moving along, I'm not going to offer an opinion on the subject as it feels like bad form to both offer the topic and then debate it (though that's just a weird personal belief of mine). I will however offer some points for discussion.
Many people believe that while the jury may not be the best body to hand down a verdict, neither is a judge, as such officials are often interested in interpreting only the most specific definition of the law. Add to this that as a professional they hear cases, day in, day out and it is possible for a judge to become tired and wish trials over quickly, without giving due consideration. Perhaps a third solution would be appropriate, if Juries are ignorant and unintelligent and Judges tired and interested only in the law, then perhaps a panel of experts in the area specific to the case should be called in. These experts would be able to determine the veracity of claims by themselves and would be able to interpret the law as any person would, using both their conscience/heart and mind.
Topic: Cases should be heard by a panel of independent experts in the field of which the trial is concerned.