Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous juries

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by notahacker on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @11:03AM (#22935513)

I think the assumption that jurors are invariably reasonable, as opposed to on average reasonable is a pretty heroic assumption not well supported by the history of trial by jury though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by asperous on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @02:28PM (#22937834)

A jury selection process lets both sides of a case interview jurors and agree on impartial and reasonable jurors.

Estimates of wrongful conviction are between .13%-5% (wikipedia, miscarriage of justice), however the main thing that trial by jury affords is transparency and perception of fairness, since you are convicted by your peers and not some politician with questionable incentives.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by pnw_hazor on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @02:36PM (#22937932)

Don't forget that the court decides what a jury gets to see or hear about a case. Juries are not perfect, but they are the best tool we have.

Further, the prosecutor has real power that far outweighs the power of the accused. Juries imperfectly provide an offset to that power imbalance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by ergothus on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @12:23PM (#22936388)

And yet, the US legal system is built around such assumptions, invalid as they may be.

[ Parent | on HN ]