Philosophical Vegan Forum

In English class, we just read '12 Angry Men', and now we're writing essays on whether or not we agree with the jury system.

I think about politics a lot, but this isn't really a question I've pondered.
I'm really not sure. I'm going to do some research (I have to for the paper anyway) and then give my opinion.

Off the top of my head, I think of it as a great system in that it allows everyday citizens to take real part in our government. On the other hand, people have certain biases that can easily come to play. But I can't think of any way to remove human biases when it comes to trials.

Maybe it'd be better for people to just read the transcripts of trials without seeing the people involved (to eliminate possible racial bias etc.), but then there are certain things about appearance that might be useful.
In '12 Angry Men', for example, the jurors came to their conclusion based off of that a woman wore glasses because she had marks on her face and that a man walked slowly and was old etc..

So that wouldn't really work.

Another issue I see is that in some cases you can kind of bully people into voting with the group, and some people might be very manipulative, but unfortunately I don't see how that could be solved, because discussion is necessary.

What do you guys think?

Disclaimer: I do not know much the American Judicial system. I hesitantly admit that most of my knowledge comes from watching court dramas and listening to the Serial podcast.

In the Netherlands, the judge(s) decides whether or not somebody is guilty and what the punishment is.

I think the idea of a jury is rather weird. I don't think it makes sense to let people who have not studied law decide over who is or is not guilty. Not only are they not educated about the law and the application of it, they are also highly prone to bias and errors. I do not see everyday citizens as fit for the job of being a judge for the same reason I do not see everyday citizens as fit for the job of being a neurosurgeon.

A judge in the Netherlands has to pass a very long and intensive education, I think that reduces the change of error. For most difficult cases, we'll simply put three judges on the case who have to come to a verdict together. If the law is not applied correctly, the prosecutor or defendant can appeal to a higher court. In my opinion, if the law is to be democratized, that should be done in parliament, not the court.

miniboes wrote:Disclaimer: I do not know much the American Judicial system. I hesitantly admit that most of my knowledge comes from watching court dramas and listening to the Serial podcast.

Hahaha, well, you're not American. I don't know anything about the judicial system in the Netherlands.

miniboes wrote:I think the idea of a jury is rather weird. I don't think it makes sense to let people who have not studied law decide over who is or is not guilty. Not only are they not educated about the law and the application of it, they are also highly prone to bias and errors. I do not see everyday citizens as fit for the job of being a judge for the same reason I do not see everyday citizens as fit for the job of being a neurosurgeon.

Interesting. I considered that they are not educated about the law, but then I questioned the relevance. Why exactly does that matter?
They just need to determine if the alleged actions of the defendant fit with a certain charge.

You could say they are prone to bias, but the people who seem biased are filtered out the best they can be through questioning.

Why do you say it's prone to error?

miniboes wrote:A judge in the Netherlands has to pass a very long and intensive education, I think that reduces the change of error. For most difficult cases, we'll simply put three judges on the case who have to come to a verdict together. If the law is not applied correctly, the prosecutor or defendant can appeal to a higher court. In my opinion, if the law is to be democratized, that should be done in parliament, not the court.

That sounds like a pretty good system.

I still haven't made up my mind about all of this.
Another thing to note is that people don't like jury duty, so they might vote in ways so they can leave quicker.
Also, lawyers are basically trained to use rhetoric to manipulate people, and that might heavily influence verdicts of everyday people. It might be better for a judge trained to ignore that to make the decision.

As a side question, if you knew your conviction would lead to the death penalty (which is immoral), would you vote for acquittal to avoid killing the guilty person (assuming the person wouldn't pose further threat)?

I don't think we should advise people to do that, because it creates a system of undermining the law, but I have a hard time seeing why that would not be the most ethical option.
Of course, that reveals another problem with the jury system ('activist jurors').


Update- Ok, I did some research, and I have my verdict (haha).
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/ ... uries.html
https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/article ... ystem.html

Based on the study written about in the first link, about 10% of convictions/acquittals are incorrect.
The second goes over that people can use the Internet to find out whether a person has a criminal record. According to a study written about in an article favoring the jury system (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/ ... s-research), a quarter of jurors in high-profile cases admitted looking up information about the case despite being instructed not to (not to mention those who didn't admit to it).
The second link also states that, according to a study, 1/3 jurors don't fully understand the judge's directions. O_O
There's also that deliberation rooms make courts more costly to tax-payers.

It mentions that, as a benefit to the jury system, that it could prevent government corruption by preventing laws society is largely against from being enforced. I don't really see that as a benefit overall, though, because I don't see it as sustainable wide-scale. That's pretty much rendering the law irrelevant.

Apparently bias isn't as much of an issue as I thought according to that study in The Guardian. There are still a lot of issues, though, so I think the jury system should be replaced like the system in the Netherlands (where judges go through a lot of training etc. and determine verdicts).