
Drinking While Jurying - samclemens
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/04/16/drinking-while-jurying#.yxOeTeK4R
======
rblatz
It seems like a sensible line would be, not being under the influence while in
court. Additionally not being hungover in court. If you are drinking or
hungover you are unable to properly focus on your tasks as a juror.

Additionally limiting discussions of the case with other jurors while drinking
seems like a good idea. The Ouija board seems highly inappropriate, since I
believe jurors are instructed to not use outside research or experiences in
rendering a verdict.

Outside of that these are adults, and the should not lose all agency because
they've been picked to serve on a jury.

~~~
gdubs
Why moralize though? I'd rather have a brilliant, fair-minded, functioning
alcoholic on a jury than a teetotaling nincompoop.

Being on a substance isn't in and of itself a good marker of whether someone
is capable of holding their position.

Arguably lack of sleep might be as bad or worse as being drunk. But culturally
we don't moralize about the former.

~~~
mikeash
It's really interesting to see which attributes we consider to be a failing.
Being drunk is considered much worse than being tired even at a similar level
of effect.

The one that I really love is how being unintelligent is often considered to
be a failing, but only to a point. When someone does something stupid and
there's a bad consequence, it's often met with "that's what they deserve, what
an idiot!" But there's a sharp cutoff (officially at an IQ of 69 or below)
where it ceases to be a moral failing and becomes a handicap worthy of
sympathy.

~~~
gdubs
Super insightful comment. We have an imperfect system, but what I think _is_
good about it is that jurors are evaluated on their capacity to fairly and
impartially decide a case. It sidesteps the need to base the qualification on
metrics like IQ, or level of intoxication, etc, and places it in the hands of
the lawyers and judges. Imperfect, and there are ways that lawyers exploit it,
but IMHO it's ultimately more fair.

------
darkerside
Very anecdotal, but I find it interesting that all cases resulted in a
conviction. I'd wager that a drinking jury tends to exhibit a reduced amount
of empathy, resulting in more guilty convictions than you'd otherwise find.

~~~
Nelson69
After 14 weeks? I'd side on which ever side was going to prevail with my vote.
I think I'd just want it to be over and get back to repairing the damage to my
life that 14 weeks on a jury inflicted.

~~~
turnip123942
While I can understand your sentiment, but that is a really horrible use of
one of your most powerful rights as a citizen. It may not change the course of
history, but it certainly can change the course of another human being's life.

------
protomyth
"concluded there was a real danger that what occurred during this misguided
ouija session may have influenced some jurors."

I get the feel a whole article could be done on "Regina v. Young (Court of
Appeal of England and Wales, 1994)". I somehow think the drinking was just the
beginning of a series of problems.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _I get the feel a whole article could be done on "Regina v. Young (Court of
> Appeal of England and Wales, 1994)"._

I'm eagerly awaiting the horror movie version.

------
jrockway
I wonder if the same applies to sleep deprivation. Some people don't really do
well at the hours required of jury service, one wonders if they are making an
important decision with the right level of mental capacity in that case.

~~~
nervoustwit
Arguably deliberating while being drink deprived could result in hasty
judgement. Stress, like sleep deprivation, is bound to affect your decision
making abilities. Everything in moderation, of course.

~~~
jedanbik
I hope you mean sleep deprived!

~~~
brewdad
Arguably, he could be drink deprived. An alcoholic, forbidden from drinking
while on a jury, would be under a lot of physical stress if we assume he or
she is capable of abstaining for the duration of a trial.

------
5_minutes
Let's not forget that, many historical (political, war,...) moments in
mankind, were heavily influenced by alcohol, or other influencing attributes.

I just want to say that it's more part of life then one assumes. If someone is
on Prozac (hey is that okay then?) or someone has a hangover? Or someone who
hasn't slept much? Or someone who is on a fast?

There is no normality. The norms of society is the goal, or the barometer, but
basically we're all just trying to get by.

------
revelation
Juries are one of those things you can write a good book about or have one of
those tearful movies where the _normal folk_ come through to make justice
prevail in face of an evil prosecutor and police.

But the reality isn't that rosy. The sample size is far too small, and worst
of all, juries amplify biases in the system. It's like inverting a matrix,
great for a math proof but you never do that in practice.

Just take this writeup on a case in Britain:

[http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-
verdict](http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict)

She just straight rammed into the cyclist from behind. No braking, didn't even
stop. But a jury of very likely overwhelmingly drivers have no problem to
acquit when there is even the slightest hint of "hey, this could be something
that might happen to me!".

------
techbio
Readable for at least this line:

"Summary: This case may well be the benchmark for jury bacchanalia."

~~~
techbio
Edit: 5-4 w/dissent from Justice Marshall

------
t0mbstone
What in the world does this have to do with hacking news?

~~~
jwilk
From the HN guidelines:

 _On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one 's intellectual curiosity._

Also:

 _Please don 't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking
on its 'flag' link._

