←back to thread

360 points namlem | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.419s | source
Show context
like_any_other ◴[] No.44571164[source]
> Juries, widely trusted to impartially deliver justice, are the most familiar instance.

Trusted by those that have not looked into whether this is actually the case. The first prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was famously against trial by jury, because of how easily lawyers can abuse biases in multiracial societies, based on his first-hand experience [1].

A UK study found his experience is the norm, not the exception - Black and minority ethnic (BME) jurors vote guilty 73% of the time against White defendants, but only 24% of the time against BME defendants [2]. (White jurors vote 39% and 32% for convicting White and BME defendants, respectively. You read that correctly - Whites are also biased against other Whites, but to a much lesser degree)

Edit: To answer what is the alternative to juries: Not all countries use juries, in some the decision is up to the judge, and in some, like France, they use a mixed system of judges and jurors on a panel [3]. The French system would be my personal preference, with the classic jury system coming in second, despite my jury-critical post. Like democracy, it's perhaps the least bad system that we have, but we shouldn't be under any illusions about how impartial and perceptive a group of 12 people selected at random is.

[1] https://postcolonialweb.org/singapore/government/leekuanyew/...

[2] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst... - page 165 (182 by pdf reader numbering), figure 6.4

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

replies(6): >>44571214 #>>44571429 #>>44571450 #>>44571511 #>>44574077 #>>44575902 #
digitalPhonix ◴[] No.44571429[source]
That statistic could also be the result of excessive prosecution against black/minorities and not necessarily just jury bias. (Which would also explain the white bias against whites)
replies(3): >>44571629 #>>44571673 #>>44572109 #
sebmellen ◴[] No.44571629[source]
If you're curious about this topic, I'd recommend you look up interviews with the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial. Many were black and by their own admission made their decision about OJ's guilt-based entirely on a feeling of racial justice. They considered it “payback.”

https://youtu.be/BUJCLdmNzAA?feature=shared

replies(3): >>44573160 #>>44573263 #>>44573508 #
1. dmonitor ◴[] No.44573160[source]
OJ Simpson is was such a famous case that I'd be inclined to treat it as an outlier in many ways, not the norm.
replies(2): >>44573562 #>>44575114 #
2. taeric ◴[] No.44573562[source]
Agreed. Outliers are a thing. As is cherry-picking data to try and prove a point.

Sucks, as this level of cherry-picking heavily biases me against the premise. If someone has a good data set, they don't need to drive anecdotes from the outliers. And if they are, is it an attempt to hide that the overall data paints a different picture?

3. thephyber ◴[] No.44575114[source]
But I would argue that jury mentality is universal.

Any juror who knows about the concept of jury nullification is more likely to use it when the defendant reminds them of themselves or when the prosecution has so vastly disproportionate resources over the defendant that the trial can’t possibly be fair.

replies(1): >>44575589 #
4. reverendsteveii ◴[] No.44575589[source]
>I would argue that jury mentality is universal

Then argue it, because that's a pretty large thing to say unsupported