"""
Most legal processes work on the theory that every case has exactly two 
opposed sides and that it is easier to find two biased humans than one 
unbiased one.  Between the prosecution and the defense, someone has a 
motive to present any given piece of evidence, so the court will see all 
the evidence; that is the theory.
"""

Perhaps it's easier to balance out biases with 12 people than with 1 or 3?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:33:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Perhaps it's easier to balance out biases with 12 people than with 1 or
> 3?

That's an interesting observation and comment - never really thought 
about it that way, but it is interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> """
> Most legal processes work on the theory that every case has exactly two 
> opposed sides and that it is easier to find two biased humans than one 
> unbiased one.  Between the prosecution and the defense, someone has a 
> motive to present any given piece of evidence, so the court will see all 
> the evidence; that is the theory.
> """

More to the point, our courts have the tendency to see the jury as 
twelve ignorant bumpkins who need to be led to the proper conclusion by 
the ever-more-wise-and-knowledgeable judge.  Which leads to a situation 
opposite of that of the aforementioned theory:  The judge ruling that 
certain categories of evidence and testimony may not be presented in court.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> """
> Most legal processes work on the theory that every case has exactly two 
> opposed sides and that it is easier to find two biased humans than one 
> unbiased one.  Between the prosecution and the defense, someone has a 
> motive to present any given piece of evidence, so the court will see all 
> the evidence; that is the theory.
> """

But that unfortunately leads to the situation that the prosecution wants 
the suspect to be convicted, whatever it takes. While the defense wants 
to get him/her free, whatever it takes. Neither is interested in the 
truth anymore (nor in the well being of the suspect or the victim), only 
in their personal score of wins and losses. Too many innocent persons 
appear to be on deathrow because their lawyer was weak or did spend more 
time on other (better paid?) cases, leaving the field open for the 
prosecution to increase their score.

> Perhaps it's easier to balance out biases with 12 people than with 1 or 3?
> 
Interesting concept. So one should claim he is innocent, one that he did 
not do it on purpose, one that he did it because his mother hates him, 
one that he is guilty as hell... Might be difficult to find 12 different 
views on a case ;)

You could do 6 different and independent stagings of the same case each 
with a different prosecution, defense, judge (and jury) and then take 
the average. Although in extreme case a person could be half set free, a 
third in jail (with a half of that released after 3 and the other half 
after 6 years) and for on sixth (e.g. his leg?) get a death sentence.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Perhaps it's easier to balance out biases with 12 people than with 1 or 3?

  That assumes that the probability of being biased to one side or the
other is approximately the same. However, this is not always the case.
There are, for instance, certain crimes which touch great taboos in
current society, and the vast majority of people will be biased against
anyone who is accused of breaking those taboos.

  (Well, this in fact has been so for as long as humans have existed.
Only the taboos have changed, but people's attitude haven't.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> More to the point, our courts have the tendency to see the jury as 
> twelve ignorant bumpkins who need to be led to the proper conclusion by 
> the ever-more-wise-and-knowledgeable judge.  Which leads to a situation 
> opposite of that of the aforementioned theory:  The judge ruling that 
> certain categories of evidence and testimony may not be presented in court.

  Well, a judge sometimes *does* have a better understanding of what is
legally admissible and relevant and what isn't, compared to 12 laymen,
most of who have got their knowledge of the judicial system from TV shows.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> certain categories of evidence and testimony may not be presented in court.

Well, that's true. There are supposed to be certain things you can't 
tell. Like, the defendant has already been convicted of other crimes - 
that isn't evidence that she did *this* crime.  Or the evidence the 
police obtained illegally, which should discourage police from obtaining 
evidence illegally.

On the other hand, I read about people going to jail for having 
prescription medicine for which the doctor gave them a prescription, 
except they weren't allowed to tell the jury he had a prescription.  Me, 
I would have stood up in the middle of the trial and just said "My 
doctor prescribed these pills. That's why I have them." And let the 
judge try to lock me up for talking out of turn. :-)  [I think I heard 
they won on appeal, with the higher judge calling it ridiculous, but you 
still wind up spending time.]

So, yeah, there has to be some reasonableness going on. If the President 
isn't going to obey the laws Congress passes, your country is pretty 
f'ed to start with. Same with the courts.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:52:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Well, that's true. There are supposed to be certain things you can't
> tell. Like, the defendant has already been convicted of other crimes -
> that isn't evidence that she did *this* crime.  Or the evidence the
> police obtained illegally, which should discourage police from obtaining
> evidence illegally.

Yeah; in the case I sat the jury for, we didn't find out until afterwards 
that the reason the cops were at the guy's house was because they were 
serving a warrant for the manufacture of methamphetamine.  We were just 
told that they were serving a warrant.  With a SWAT team.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> """
> Most legal processes work on the theory that every case has exactly two 
> opposed sides and that it is easier to find two biased humans than one 
> unbiased one.  Between the prosecution and the defense, someone has a 
> motive to present any given piece of evidence, so the court will see all 
> the evidence; that is the theory.
> """
> 
> Perhaps it's easier to balance out biases with 12 people than with 1 or 3?
> 
In this book
http://www.amazon.com/Taming-Chance-Ideas-Context/dp/0521388848
by Ian Hacking, to the best of my memory, he discusses how the jury 
system, esp. the number of jurors, is an outgrowth of early French 
exploration into statistics and probability?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:52:00 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On the other hand, I read about people going to jail for having  
> prescription medicine for which the doctor gave them a prescription,  
> except they weren't allowed to tell the jury he had a prescription.  Me,  
> I would have stood up in the middle of the trial and just said "My  
> doctor prescribed these pills. That's why I have them." And let the  
> judge try to lock me up for talking out of turn. :-)  [I think I heard  
> they won on appeal, with the higher judge calling it ridiculous, but you  
> still wind up spending time.]

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/19/Hillsborough/Man_with_prescription.shtml  
perhaps?

> So, yeah, there has to be some reasonableness going on. If the President  
> isn't going to obey the laws Congress passes, your country is pretty  
> f'ed to start with. Same with the courts.

At least you have restraints in theory our government can do whatever the  
hell they like legally (though it takes some persistance and doing)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message