The 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma'

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma' - Video Library - The New York Times

Why I would never trust a jury of my peers, let alone a jury of you peers.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hence why the idea of professional jurors was put forth some years ago. Our justice system is one of the best on the planet but has a long way to go go before it can even be considered good. Revamping the jury is most likely the best place to start.

I hate to say it but the average person is a complete idiot and the average person that is placed on a jury even more likely so. THAT is what we are contending with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hence why the idea of professional jurors was put forth some years ago. Our justice system is one of the best on the planet but has a long way to go go before it can even be considered good. Revamping the jury is most likely the best place to start.

I hate to say it but the average person is a complete idiot and the average person that is placed on a jury even more likely so. THAT is what we are contending with.

Here's a test, would anybody in their right minds want a random sampling of people from the community they live in to judge them? I mean come on. Way back when, people knew each other and one had to be very careful about how they judged their neighbors, their peers. No more. We're all either strangers or worse -- viewed as enemies because of a bumper sticker we have on our car.

The system is antiquated.

another test question: would anyone in their right minds want a random sampling of internet message board posters to sit in judgment of them?

 

[Father Time]

Hence why the idea of professional jurors was put forth some years ago. Our justice system is one of the best on the planet but has a long way to go go before it can even be considered good. Revamping the jury is most likely the best place to start.

I hate to say it but the average person is a complete idiot and the average person that is placed on a jury even more likely so. THAT is what we are contending with.

Reminds me of a quote from the movie let's go to prison.

"Juries are made up of 12 people who are so dumb they couldn't even think up an excuse to get out of jury duty."

 

[George Costanza]

The issue here isn't so much about a failure of the jury system in this case but, rather, the failure of parole board policies and how parole boards consider someone eligible for parole.

The Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma is a glaring example of the gross stupidity of the system. The fix is simple: change parole board policy to allow the parole board to consider remorse if the prisoner is admitting guilt in the first instance, but prevent the parole board from considering remorse in the event the prisoner is not admitting guilt.

There are plenty of other factors that are relevant to a grant or denial of parole.

 

[FA_Q2]

The issue here isn't so much about a failure of the jury system in this case but, rather, the failure of parole board policies and how parole boards consider someone eligible for parole.

The Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma is a glaring example of the gross stupidity of the system. The fix is simple: change parole board policy to allow the parole board to consider remorse if the prisoner is admitting guilt in the first instance, but prevent the parole board from considering remorse in the event the prisoner is not admitting guilt.

There are plenty of other factors that are relevant to a grant or denial of parole.

The problem with that is the prisoner has already been identified as guilty. They were already awarded all the protections that we could offer. The system may not be perfect but the whole idea is that once you have been given that fair trial your guilt has been established. That is why I believe it is the jury that needs the true reform because the true answer to the problem is to make locking up innocent people so rare that it is no longer an issue.

 

[Liability]

The 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma' - Video Library - The New York Times

Why I would never trust a jury of my peers, let alone a jury of you peers.

If you were to get arrested, Dainty, you only have a few very limited choices. Unless you can get the case dismissed by the prosecutors or the Court without a trial, you can do ONE of the following, but they are the only options open to you:

1: go to trial before a judge, by waiving your right to a jury of your peers,

2: go to trial before a jury of your peers, or

3: plead guilty (or, in some jurisdictions, you can plead nolo contendere or no contest).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma' - Video Library - The New York Times

Why I would never trust a jury of my peers, let alone a jury of you peers.

If you were to get arrested, Dainty, you only have a few very limited choices. Unless you can get the case dismissed by the prosecutors or the Court without a trial, you can do ONE of the following, but they are the only options open to you:

1: go to trial before a judge, by waiving your right to a jury of your peers,

2: go to trial before a jury of your peers, or

3: plead guilty (or, in some jurisdictions, you can plead nolo contendere or no contest).

I was a witness. Guy called for a jury trial. I testified before the jury. I was thanked and outside i was told the guy's lawyer ended up changing the plea right then and there. Cambridge, Middlesex County Court.

---

side bar: If he had asked for a trial by a Judge, maybe the Judge would have went easier on him then he did (guy had priors and was in violation of parole/probation during arrest). The guy wasted everyone's time.

 

[Liability]

The 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma' - Video Library - The New York Times

Why I would never trust a jury of my peers, let alone a jury of you peers.

If you were to get arrested, Dainty, you only have a few very limited choices. Unless you can get the case dismissed by the prosecutors or the Court without a trial, you can do ONE of the following, but they are the only options open to you:

1: go to trial before a judge, by waiving your right to a jury of your peers,

2: go to trial before a jury of your peers, or

3: plead guilty (or, in some jurisdictions, you can plead nolo contendere or no contest).

I was a witness. Guy called for a jury trial. I testified before the jury. I was thanked and outside i was told the guy's lawyer ended up changing the plea right then and there. Cambridge, Middlesex County Court.

---

side bar: If he had asked for a trial by a Judge, maybe the Judge would have went easier on him then he did (guy had priors and was in violation of parole/probation during arrest). The guy wasted everyone's time.

If you go for a trial by judge, then the issue of whether or not the "finder of fact" sees a "reasonable doubt" is decided by just one person.

By contrast, if you take a jury of your peers (at least in a felony trial), then ANY one of twelve sticking to a determination of "reasonable doubt" can prevent a conviction.

If you are charged with a crime, the jury is supposed to determine whether the government proves it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that you did it. Very often, the question of a guy's prior criminal record shouldn't even be HEARD by the jury since it can lead to the invalid (illogical) conclusion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict a guy who didn't commit the crime (and whom the evidence doesn't really prove guilty) merely because he used to commit crimes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you were to get arrested, Dainty, you only have a few very limited choices. Unless you can get the case dismissed by the prosecutors or the Court without a trial, you can do ONE of the following, but they are the only options open to you:

1: go to trial before a judge, by waiving your right to a jury of your peers,

2: go to trial before a jury of your peers, or

3: plead guilty (or, in some jurisdictions, you can plead nolo contendere or no contest).

I was a witness. Guy called for a jury trial. I testified before the jury. I was thanked and outside i was told the guy's lawyer ended up changing the plea right then and there. Cambridge, Middlesex County Court.

---

side bar: If he had asked for a trial by a Judge, maybe the Judge would have went easier on him then he did (guy had priors and was in violation of parole/probation during arrest). The guy wasted everyone's time.

If you go for a trial by judge, then the issue of whether or not the "finder of fact" sees a "reasonable doubt" is decided by just one person.

By contrast, if you take a jury of your peers (at least in a felony trial), then ANY one of twelve sticking to a determination of "reasonable doubt" can prevent a conviction.

If you are charged with a crime, the jury is supposed to determine whether the government proves it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that you did it. Very often, the question of a guy's prior criminal record shouldn't even be HEARD by the jury since it can lead to the invalid (illogical) conclusion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict a guy who didn't commit the crime (and whom the evidence doesn't really prove guilty) merely because he used to commit crimes.

Today's juries are anachronisms.

 

[Liability]

I was a witness. Guy called for a jury trial. I testified before the jury. I was thanked and outside i was told the guy's lawyer ended up changing the plea right then and there. Cambridge, Middlesex County Court.

---

side bar: If he had asked for a trial by a Judge, maybe the Judge would have went easier on him then he did (guy had priors and was in violation of parole/probation during arrest). The guy wasted everyone's time.

If you go for a trial by judge, then the issue of whether or not the "finder of fact" sees a "reasonable doubt" is decided by just one person.

By contrast, if you take a jury of your peers (at least in a felony trial), then ANY one of twelve sticking to a determination of "reasonable doubt" can prevent a conviction.

If you are charged with a crime, the jury is supposed to determine whether the government proves it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that you did it. Very often, the question of a guy's prior criminal record shouldn't even be HEARD by the jury since it can lead to the invalid (illogical) conclusion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict a guy who didn't commit the crime (and whom the evidence doesn't really prove guilty) merely because he used to commit crimes.

Today's juries are anachronisms.

Not at all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you go for a trial by judge, then the issue of whether or not the "finder of fact" sees a "reasonable doubt" is decided by just one person.

By contrast, if you take a jury of your peers (at least in a felony trial), then ANY one of twelve sticking to a determination of "reasonable doubt" can prevent a conviction.

If you are charged with a crime, the jury is supposed to determine whether the government proves it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that you did it. Very often, the question of a guy's prior criminal record shouldn't even be HEARD by the jury since it can lead to the invalid (illogical) conclusion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict a guy who didn't commit the crime (and whom the evidence doesn't really prove guilty) merely because he used to commit crimes.

Today's juries are anachronisms.

Not at all.

The jury system we use is old and antiquated.

 

[George Costanza]

Today's juries are anachronisms.

No longer necessary, hey? A throwback to some distant time in the past?

I totally disagree. I'm not even going to dust of that tired old cliche: "They're not perfect, but they're the best we have." I love juries. I love jury trials. You would be surprised at the way most juries can sort through all of the b.s. and come up with valid verdicts.

What's your alternative to jury trials? Court trials? Professional juries? Can't compare. Can't even come close.

 

[Liability]

Today's juries are anachronisms.

Not at all.

The jury system we use is old and antiquated.

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not at all.

The jury system we use is old and antiquated.

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

I don't know how Pro Jurors would work out. I suspect they would not be "Perfect," or necessarily "defective" either.

 

[Liability]

The jury system we use is old and antiquated.

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

I don't know how Pro Jurors would work out. I suspect they would not be "Perfect," or necessarily "defective" either.

Or better, even, at least not necessarily.

So why change the system, again?

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all.

The jury system we use is old and antiquated.

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

The idea behind pro juries is that they would be better educated and better equipped to understand the facts presented let alone have a better understanding of law. It is an issue while basic things like DNA are entered into a trial and the jury does not have the slightest clue as to what or how DNA works.

Again, if you look at the average jury member I would bet that you will find a surprising lack of intelligence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

I don't know how Pro Jurors would work out. I suspect they would not be "Perfect," or necessarily "defective" either.

Or better, even, at least not necessarily.

So why change the system, again?

It's broken. Just ask the families of OJ's victims.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The jury system we use is old and antiquated.

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

The idea behind pro juries is that they would be better educated and better equipped to understand the facts presented let alone have a better understanding of law. It is an issue while basic things like DNA are entered into a trial and the jury does not have the slightest clue as to what or how DNA works.

Again, if you look at the average jury member I would bet that you will find a surprising lack of intelligence.

an understatement. the educated ones are usually the least intelligent. sort of like the crowd here.

 

[FA_Q2]

It has a long historical record. That much is true.

But it still serves its purposes in a damn fine manner and nobody has presented a better idea of how to go about the fact finding function yet. Perfect? Why, no. It isn't. But old and antiquated do not necessarily connote defective, either.

I hear folks talk about "professional" jurors. What reason is there to believe that they'd be any better?

The idea behind pro juries is that they would be better educated and better equipped to understand the facts presented let alone have a better understanding of law. It is an issue while basic things like DNA are entered into a trial and the jury does not have the slightest clue as to what or how DNA works.

Again, if you look at the average jury member I would bet that you will find a surprising lack of intelligence.

an understatement. the educated ones are usually the least intelligent. sort of like the crowd here.

WOW, thanks for the poke

Correction, that would be the ones that THINK they are educated when they are, in fact, just strongly opinionated. Rather worse in a jury too.

On that note, there is more than likely a higher concentration of bigots on a jury as well. If you hate black people and live in LA then what better place to make a difference when you already know that *everyone* that is committing crimes must be black.