Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias?

What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading.

EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't get what if anything this guy is trying to say, other than simply "it's like The Breakfast Club".




No, this guy seems like a real human being. Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals.

There's lots of "rules" in life, and our job as humans is figuring out which ones matter.


I agree. A juror who believes in following the rules for the sake of following the rules is terrifying. The goal of our legal system is (or should be) justice rather than mere law enforcement, and it's never appropriate to ignore the fact that every component of the system is fallible.


Agreed^million. Terrifying in a Stanford Prison meets Milgram way. I think all jurors should be put through Milgram-like experiments as condition for service, to determine if they're cowed by authority or possess their own moral compasses.


And a decent, rational, moral, courageous person whom realizes legality is rarely the same as justice.

Too many people find it expedient to just shirk their responsibilities and send innocent people to prison, to death because "it's too much work" or "don't want conflict."


> Jurors are supposed to be humans, first and foremost. That's why juries are made up of your peers and not a bunch of legal professionals.

Juries do not exist to selectively exercise "humanity" by ignoring the rules. They exist because any more narrowly-drawn pool of decision-makers could more easily be accused of bias and partiality.


It's not about accusations of bias, it's about the fact of bias. Specialization tends to narrow your worldview and breed conformity. That's how regulatory capture happens even in the absence of overt bribery. Juries aren't just for show.

Now consider this: if the addition of the diversity of juries tends to improve the fairness of our legal system, it has to be due to the influence of jurors that don't think and act and decide according to the norms of the rest of the legal system.


I largely agree, although couldn't the same argument be used by those who would enter a guilty verdict in the presence of reasonable doubt? It seems many people believe it's just to convict a person they believe to be guilty, even if it's conceivable that they aren't, and that "innocent until proven guilty" is just a meaningless rule.


It is one persons detailed account of a very important aspect of our society that few people know much about (I personally do not know anyone who has actually served on a jury let alone in a murder trial). I enjoyed reading it. I think it would be worth reading to understand how someone felt throughout this process whether or not you agreed with that persons feelings or interpretation. After all, if you are on trial this juror (or jury) may be representative of who will judge you.


You're getting downvoted, but I agree with you.

I think the problem is that people don't have respect for the system. The judge isn't the system, he's only one part of it, yet the author projects his lack of respect for the system onto the judge. Calling him "your honor" is a part reminding people, hey, we all need to be on our best behavior and be respectful.

Respect is something very lacking in society today.


I mean, it was a well written article and at the very least, a good story. It seems kind of silly to "save time" by not reading the article and then spending time complaining about it in the comments. Maybe press the back button and go get yourself a free SSL certificate ;-)


I just gave up toward the end. Found nothing enjoyable in this read, not really sure why.


Delusions of grandeur?

He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star, but I'm no psychologist.

It might be hard, but try to understand the minority perspective in viewing the system, you might trust any part of it, and you'll see things like bias and privilege even when they don't exist.


> He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star

From TFA:

> I’m no Henry Fonda.

Jesus, did you even read the thing?


Ignore that guy. He's a new account that specialises in trolling. I've seen him in other threads where his comments are so downvoted that they're barely readable. I think they're either deleted or removed at this point.


Your quote would seem to support the idea you object to. "I'm no Henry Fonda" explicitly draws a comparison between yourself and Henry Fonda, and this kind of rhetorical device is often used to suggest things that the bounds of propriety forbid you from saying outright.

Imagine two political rivals campaigning against each other, Mr. Lowbrow and Mr. Classy. Mr. Lowbrow releases campaign literature to the effect that Mr. Classy is a pussy. Mr. Classy responds "a less courteous person might observe that my esteemed opponent washed out of seventh grade... but I won't. This race is about the issues."

The particular rhetoric Mr. Classy is using there doesn't mean it makes sense to defend him against charges that he called Mr. Lowbrow stupid. (Hey, he specifically said he wasn't doing that!)


In this case, the author is clearly comparing another juror ("Henry") to Henry Fonda, not himself. Which is definitely not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.


> I think of him as Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. We will share this role.

You can tell me how this means he's not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: