"When you go to a hospital, you're putting your life in your own hands. Anything that happens is your fault."
"A similar thing happened to me, and I didn't ask for money."
"Pain is just part of life you have to deal with. Not making a big fuss about it is a sign of maturity, and this lady obviously isn't very mature."
"You can't expect doctors to be miracle workers."
"If we give this award to this woman, every woman who gets an operation will start suing the hospital and pretty soon the hospital will go out of business."
This is why red states are the poorest in the Union.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The concept of juries always seemed pretty unfair to me.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
Considering no collateral damage over a 6 month period from negligence, 1 million is pretty minimal. That's why they have malpractice insurance.
If you earn $2 million a year then it would be acceptable compensation for 6 months of lost work, if you earn 30k then you're just cashing in. Remember we're talking about $1 mil in addition to all the hospital/legal fees. The million bucks is pretty much just for the inconvenience which seems a little excessive to me, but then I'm not from the US so I have a different scale to you guys as to what constitutes excessive in law suits.
Yeah but we're also talking negligence. If they had just left like, you know, 1 sponge in her that'd be completely different than 9 and a surgical tool. You don't do that, that's stupid. That's "lol let's just sew her up." How do you not see 9 surgical sponges in someone's body before you close them up?
That's why it's 1 million, and if you ask me, it should've been 20.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So I just read the wiki on jury nullification and I'm completely confused as to whether or not it's actually allowed.
Every single time it seems like it's something that you can do legally, it also seems like there's a legal out to get you kicked off the jury or declare a mistrial or something.
This bothers me.
Jury nullification is one of those things that the legal profession has a big problem with, because while technically it's not supposed to be done, if you actually look at the structure of juries, it's one of their reasons for existing. It's one of the great checks - that if the law grows too far out of touch with the common man, they have the power to render the law null. Take the Simpson case - the jury nullifying there was a wakeup call to the Los Angeles government that institutional issues with racism needed to be dealt with.
So 50-60 years ago in the South when a jury would decide that, despite the mountains of evidence, those good 'ol boys are completely innocent of killing that black man/burning down that black church/etc. what was that a "great check" to?
If "the law grows too far out of touch with the common man" the check on that is VOTING to get the laws changed, either through electing new officials who support those platforms or (if you locally have) referendums/propositions.
We've had this come up in a previous thread a while back, where many people were eager to say jury nullification is somehow great and important when to me it seems completely immoral and reprehensible. Even in your example of OJ Simpson they let a guilty man walk free, and you're fine with it because (you assume) it was motivated by an underlying political motivation you share. You don't see how that's ridiculously problematic? I mean, explain to me why that's ok but the southern jury letting the Klansman free isn't, because these two are identical in my mind.
Considering no collateral damage over a 6 month period from negligence, 1 million is pretty minimal. That's why they have malpractice insurance.
If you earn $2 million a year then it would be acceptable compensation for 6 months of lost work, if you earn 30k then you're just cashing in. Remember we're talking about $1 mil in addition to all the hospital/legal fees. The million bucks is pretty much just for the inconvenience which seems a little excessive to me, but then I'm not from the US so I have a different scale to you guys as to what constitutes excessive in law suits.
Yeah but we're also talking negligence. If they had just left like, you know, 1 sponge in her that'd be completely different than 9 and a surgical tool. You don't do that, that's stupid. That's "lol let's just sew her up." How do you not see 9 surgical sponges in someone's body before you close them up?
That's why it's 1 million, and if you ask me, it should've been 20.
If we had to pick a stereotype to explain this I would go with the operating surgeon telling flunky surgeon to come in and close the woman up because by god he was late for his tee time and completely spacing on the fact that there was still gear inside her.
Also I could understand losing a sponge or two, though certainly not nine, and not being aware of it but a surgical tool? When an operating tray comes back short after the procedure is done do you go "those things are like socks, magically disappears in the washer".
The concept of juries always seemed pretty unfair to me.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
It goes further, in that if you actually are somehow specifically qualified for a given case you were randomly chosen for, odds are one side or the other will have you removed.
Considering no collateral damage over a 6 month period from negligence, 1 million is pretty minimal. That's why they have malpractice insurance.
If you earn $2 million a year then it would be acceptable compensation for 6 months of lost work, if you earn 30k then you're just cashing in. Remember we're talking about $1 mil in addition to all the hospital/legal fees. The million bucks is pretty much just for the inconvenience which seems a little excessive to me, but then I'm not from the US so I have a different scale to you guys as to what constitutes excessive in law suits.
Yeah but we're also talking negligence. If they had just left like, you know, 1 sponge in her that'd be completely different than 9 and a surgical tool. You don't do that, that's stupid. That's "lol let's just sew her up." How do you not see 9 surgical sponges in someone's body before you close them up?
That's why it's 1 million, and if you ask me, it should've been 20.
If we had to pick a stereotype to explain this I would go with the operating surgeon telling flunky surgeon to come in and close the woman up because by god he was late for his tee time and completely spacing on the fact that there was still gear inside her.
Also I could understand losing a sponge or two, though certainly not nine, and not being aware of it but a surgical tool? When an operating tray comes back short after the procedure is done do you go "those things are like socks, magically disappears in the washer".
Yeah 1-2 could be hard to find if they soaked up enough blood, they'd probably look just like any tissue in your gut. 9 though? And a surgical tool?
Most lap sponges (surgical sponge) are just collections of gauze if I recall,so you can see why losing a single/double would be possible. 9 though seems extraordinary. And the tool itself seals the deal. It was probably one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forceps, which, I could see losing track of if something chaotic happened.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The concept of juries always seemed pretty unfair to me.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
It goes further, in that if you actually are somehow specifically qualified for a given case you were randomly chosen for, odds are one side or the other will have you removed.
I would have figured that at least some part of the problem comes from being able to go all lord of the flies in the jury room. Since there isn't anyone in there reminding you that convicting people right off the bat just because you want to go home makes you a failure as a human being and that you should probably be locked up for contempt of court.
Considering no collateral damage over a 6 month period from negligence, 1 million is pretty minimal. That's why they have malpractice insurance.
If you earn $2 million a year then it would be acceptable compensation for 6 months of lost work, if you earn 30k then you're just cashing in. Remember we're talking about $1 mil in addition to all the hospital/legal fees. The million bucks is pretty much just for the inconvenience which seems a little excessive to me, but then I'm not from the US so I have a different scale to you guys as to what constitutes excessive in law suits.
Yeah but we're also talking negligence. If they had just left like, you know, 1 sponge in her that'd be completely different than 9 and a surgical tool. You don't do that, that's stupid. That's "lol let's just sew her up." How do you not see 9 surgical sponges in someone's body before you close them up?
That's why it's 1 million, and if you ask me, it should've been 20.
If we had to pick a stereotype to explain this I would go with the operating surgeon telling flunky surgeon to come in and close the woman up because by god he was late for his tee time and completely spacing on the fact that there was still gear inside her.
Also I could understand losing a sponge or two, though certainly not nine, and not being aware of it but a surgical tool? When an operating tray comes back short after the procedure is done do you go "those things are like socks, magically disappears in the washer".
Yeah 1-2 could be hard to find if they soaked up enough blood, they'd probably look just like any tissue in your gut. 9 though? And a surgical tool?
Most lap sponges (surgical sponge) are just collections of gauze if I recall,so you can see why losing a single/double would be possible. 9 though seems extraordinary. And the tool itself seals the deal. It was probably one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forceps, which, I could see losing track of if something chaotic happened.
Losing tools is still pretty shocking these days. They're supposed to do a mandatory count of all the instruments after surgery for precisely this reason - to make sure they didn't leave anything inside.
I think punitive damages need to be given to a charity or something similar. It would allow people to separate the idea of "punishment so they won't do it again", from someone just trying to cash in. Especially as companies get larger, the pain-threshold for them, and what I could realistically believe someone deserves as compensation is going to continue to diverge.
Also a 'winner premium' like in auctions, and so tax code changes, so the jury doesn't need to do the whole "damages -taxes-lawyersfees" math.
The rise in payouts is mostly tied to a rise in wages. Back in the day you being out sick for 6 months would've have cost you too much. But we're talking half million dollar homes for your average middle class family in some areas, and pain and suffering that you may go through, especially if you have a psychiatric record at some point. That could hurt someone's chances are landing a lucrative job. Who knows, but 1 million is far from "excessive."
But juries shouldn't have to deal with that kind of stuff, it should be decided on by the lawyers and judge.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The rise in payouts is mostly tied to a rise in wages. Back in the day you being out sick for 6 months would've have cost you too much. But we're talking half million dollar homes for your average middle class family in some areas, and pain and suffering that you may go through, especially if you have a psychiatric record at some point. That could hurt someone's chances are landing a lucrative job. Who knows, but 1 million is far from "excessive."
But juries shouldn't have to deal with that kind of stuff, it should be decided on by the lawyers and judge.
I agree on the 1m being circumstantially appropriate, my comment is more that for a large company, a 1m hit would be a rounding error in its accounting. Say GE did something complete negligent. Even if it made the person completely unable to work, You average person with a BA will maybe make $2m in their lifetime, double that for P&S and you get $4m. GE won't notice $4m, but at the same time trying to sell a jury on $10m or $20m or $40m in compensation is going up an ever steeper slope.
Saying that a jury can nullify a law is kind of like saying that a witness can lie about what they witnessed.
Sure, it can happen, and can affect the outcome of trials. But it is also lying under oath and is wholly unethical. At least here it is. I took an oath, more than once during this, to decide the case based on the law, the facts, and the instructions given by the judge. I swore under oath specifically that I would not decide based on what I thought the sentence might be, or because I had a philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious problem with the law in general or with the charges against the defendant, etc. In theory, our decision is what it is no matter what, just like in theory the testimony of a witness as to what they directly witnessed is considered a fact in the case. But the jury is legally charged to determine if any testimony might be false, just as the judge is legally charged to determine if the jury may have decided the case according to improper and illegal deliberation. At the end of the day, the ultimate goal is not to sanctify the jury, but rather to ensure due process and a fair trial are served to the defendant.
Saying that a jury can nullify a law is kind of like saying that a witness can lie about what they witnessed.
Sure, it can happen, and can affect the outcome of trials. But it is also lying under oath and is wholly unethical. At least here it is. I took an oath, more than once during this, to decide the case based on the law, the facts, and the instructions given by the judge. I swore under oath specifically that I would not decide based on what I thought the sentence might be, or because I had a philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious problem with the law in general or with the charges against the defendant, etc. In theory, our decision is what it is no matter what, just like in theory the testimony of a witness as to what they directly witnessed is considered a fact in the case. But the jury is legally charged to determine if any testimony might be false, just as the judge is legally charged to determine if the jury may have decided the case according to improper and illegal deliberation. At the end of the day, the ultimate goal is not to sanctify the jury, but rather to ensure due process and a fair trial are served to the defendant.
Lying in court is illegal. Jury nullification is not. You have the right to jury nullification no matter what oath you took or what the judge told you.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The rise in payouts is mostly tied to a rise in wages. Back in the day you being out sick for 6 months would've have cost you too much. But we're talking half million dollar homes for your average middle class family in some areas, and pain and suffering that you may go through, especially if you have a psychiatric record at some point. That could hurt someone's chances are landing a lucrative job. Who knows, but 1 million is far from "excessive."
But juries shouldn't have to deal with that kind of stuff, it should be decided on by the lawyers and judge.
I agree on the 1m being circumstantially appropriate, my comment is more that for a large company, a 1m hit would be a rounding error in its accounting. Say GE did something complete negligent. Even if it made the person completely unable to work, You average person with a BA will maybe make $2m in their lifetime, double that for P&S and you get $4m. GE won't notice $4m, but at the same time trying to sell a jury on $10m or $20m or $40m in compensation is going up an ever steeper slope.
If anything the payouts should be hidden from jurors. They should only be deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty of negligence/crime. Not whether the payout is substantial enough, or that they feel wronged because they didn't get a payout when their doctor left a suture in.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That doesn't mean that a judge can't do everything in his power from preventing you from using jury nullification, including striking any counsel arguments involving jury nullification, any arguments involving the unjust nature of the law itself, and declaring a mistrial if such arguments are brought forward.
However the courts have affirmed repeatedly that jury nullification is a constitutional right, even if agents of the court are not expected to facilitate the exercise of that right.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I see no reason that jury nullification shouldn't be a thing. Are you worried about first degree murder getting nullified? No? Well most of the time it's over blue laws like you're not allowed to engage in sodomy with consenting parties. The jury can feel it's no longer in the best interest of courts to waste time and nullify, as the law is no longer applicable.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I see no reason that jury nullification shouldn't be a thing. Are you worried about first degree murder getting nullified? No? Well most of the time it's over blue laws like you're not allowed to engage in sodomy with consenting parties. The jury can feel it's no longer in the best interest of courts to waste time and nullify, as the law is no longer applicable.
Murders have gotten nullified, as Lanlaorn described above. On the other hand, jury nullification has also prevented ex-slaves from being convicted under the fugitive slave laws, protected anti-war protesters, and prevented convictions under prohibition.
We could probably go back and forth all day over whether the consequences of jury nullification throughout US history add up to a net positive or a net negative and never reach agreement.
I support jury nullification because I believe that requiring a juror to act against the weight of his or her own conscience presents more problems than it solves.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Yeah by default nullification is a real thing. But I do not believe it is an intentional check on anything.
I'm sure it would've been accounted for it they didn't want it to happen. After all, the origin system was a bunch of rich white dudes in wigs sentencing people regardless of a trial or not.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Considering no collateral damage over a 6 month period from negligence, 1 million is pretty minimal. That's why they have malpractice insurance.
If you earn $2 million a year then it would be acceptable compensation for 6 months of lost work, if you earn 30k then you're just cashing in. Remember we're talking about $1 mil in addition to all the hospital/legal fees. The million bucks is pretty much just for the inconvenience which seems a little excessive to me, but then I'm not from the US so I have a different scale to you guys as to what constitutes excessive in law suits.
Your moral calculus is alien to me.
A) The idea of punitive damages is to designed to punish the defendant in order to provide a disincentive for repeat behavior by either the defendant or society at large.
I don't think that really works though. Ideally it would lead to the hospitals to better their behaviour, but what is likely to happen is that they try to cover it up or rely on the courts to find them not at fault. The person didn't get the million dollars after all.
Remember we're talking about $1 mil in addition to all the hospital/legal fees.
Actually, I'm pretty sure we're not. The lawsuit was for a million dollars, and she has to pay her legal fees and such after that. We don't live in a loser-pays world, thankfully.
The concept of juries always seemed pretty unfair to me.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
Yeah... Think of Youtube comments. These are your peers.
The concept of juries always seemed pretty unfair to me.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
The accused can always choose a bench trial in a criminal case.
Jury trials in civil cases don't really bother me. Both sides get to be involved in the jury selection process, so it tends to even out when it comes to getting a favorable jury.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So I just read the wiki on jury nullification and I'm completely confused as to whether or not it's actually allowed.
Every single time it seems like it's something that you can do legally, it also seems like there's a legal out to get you kicked off the jury or declare a mistrial or something.
This bothers me.
Jury nullification is one of those things that the legal profession has a big problem with, because while technically it's not supposed to be done, if you actually look at the structure of juries, it's one of their reasons for existing. It's one of the great checks - that if the law grows too far out of touch with the common man, they have the power to render the law null. Take the Simpson case - the jury nullifying there was a wakeup call to the Los Angeles government that institutional issues with racism needed to be dealt with.
So 50-60 years ago in the South when a jury would decide that, despite the mountains of evidence, those good 'ol boys are completely innocent of killing that black man/burning down that black church/etc. what was that a "great check" to?
If "the law grows too far out of touch with the common man" the check on that is VOTING to get the laws changed, either through electing new officials who support those platforms or (if you locally have) referendums/propositions.
We've had this come up in a previous thread a while back, where many people were eager to say jury nullification is somehow great and important when to me it seems completely immoral and reprehensible. Even in your example of OJ Simpson they let a guilty man walk free, and you're fine with it because (you assume) it was motivated by an underlying political motivation you share. You don't see how that's ridiculously problematic? I mean, explain to me why that's ok but the southern jury letting the Klansman free isn't, because these two are identical in my mind.
You've got a point there and I can't completely answer it, but I can say that where I live, jury nullification has some positives.
Hitting and killing someone with a car you were driving (criminally) negligently is called "dangerous driving causing death". Any other kind of criminal negligence causing death fits under one of the types of "manslaughter". However, they both have the same jail term on the books. So what's the big deal? Labelling.
It used to all be "manslaughter". But juries were unhappy with finding people guilty of "manslaughter" for something they could see themselves doing quite easily (driving stupidly for a minute and killing someone). So while the punishment hasn't changed the name has. What you call an offence is important to people. People like jurors, and people like employers. If you were my employee - or wanted to become one - I might not bother to ask you how you committed "manslaughter" before showing you the door. On the other hand, I might understand if you'd committed "dangerous driving causing death". Juries were sending a signal - one that would never have been sent by elections.
I think punitive damages need to be given to a charity or something similar. It would allow people to separate the idea of "punishment so they won't do it again", from someone just trying to cash in. Especially as companies get larger, the pain-threshold for them, and what I could realistically believe someone deserves as compensation is going to continue to diverge.
Also a 'winner premium' like in auctions, and so tax code changes, so the jury doesn't need to do the whole "damages -taxes-lawyersfees" math.
I've always said the bulk of punitive damages should be used to fund representation, particularly in civil cases, for those who can demonstrate a financial need for it.
So I just read the wiki on jury nullification and I'm completely confused as to whether or not it's actually allowed.
Every single time it seems like it's something that you can do legally, it also seems like there's a legal out to get you kicked off the jury or declare a mistrial or something.
This bothers me.
Jury nullification is one of those things that the legal profession has a big problem with, because while technically it's not supposed to be done, if you actually look at the structure of juries, it's one of their reasons for existing. It's one of the great checks - that if the law grows too far out of touch with the common man, they have the power to render the law null. Take the Simpson case - the jury nullifying there was a wakeup call to the Los Angeles government that institutional issues with racism needed to be dealt with.
So 50-60 years ago in the South when a jury would decide that, despite the mountains of evidence, those good 'ol boys are completely innocent of killing that black man/burning down that black church/etc. what was that a "great check" to?
If "the law grows too far out of touch with the common man" the check on that is VOTING to get the laws changed, either through electing new officials who support those platforms or (if you locally have) referendums/propositions.
We've had this come up in a previous thread a while back, where many people were eager to say jury nullification is somehow great and important when to me it seems completely immoral and reprehensible. Even in your example of OJ Simpson they let a guilty man walk free, and you're fine with it because (you assume) it was motivated by an underlying political motivation you share. You don't see how that's ridiculously problematic? I mean, explain to me why that's ok but the southern jury letting the Klansman free isn't, because these two are identical in my mind.
You've got a point there and I can't completely answer it, but I can say that where I live, jury nullification has some positives.
Hitting and killing someone with a car you were driving (criminally) negligently is called "dangerous driving causing death". Any other kind of criminal negligence causing death fits under one of the types of "manslaughter". However, they both have the same jail term on the books. So what's the big deal? Labelling.
It used to all be "manslaughter". But juries were unhappy with finding people guilty of "manslaughter" for something they could see themselves doing quite easily (driving stupidly for a minute and killing someone). So while the punishment hasn't changed the name has. What you call an offence is important to people. People like jurors, and people like employers. If you were my employee - or wanted to become one - I might not bother to ask you how you committed "manslaughter" before showing you the door. On the other hand, I might understand if you'd committed "dangerous driving causing death". Juries were sending a signal - one that would never have been sent by elections.
I think it's a little different, if in my southern racist example if the courts had created a distinction between Murder and "keeping the negroes in line" that had the same penalty, do you think the juries would have then said "oh ok, he IS guilty of that!" and sent the defendant off to the gallows? I think it's a more fundamental "what he did is not wrong at all and should not be punished".
I mean I understand the positives in a case where the laws are legitimately antiquated (e.g. the various anti-sodomy laws) and the jury says "yea ok that's silly". But I feel they could have achieved the same thing by actually voting to get rid of the anti-sodomy law.
Meanwhile for the negative cases, no one is seriously going to abolish murder laws, and yet the possibility of "I really like the defendant so he gets a pass" exists (I always think of the fictional example of Clay Davis in The Wire where he outright confesses to his crimes while on the stand but does so in a very sympathetic way and boom, not guilty).
It is notoriously difficult to strike laws. That is pretty much one of the reasons nullification exists. Just look at all the blue laws for your state. No one wipes them because there isn't time to do it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The biggest problem, though, is that we already have a group of professionals who handle the court system, and as has been stated numerous times, they each think they're right. The prosecutors believe everyone to be guilty and defense attorneys believe everyone to be innocent (or essentially innocent).
I have to be pedantic and point out that while their jobs require them to pursue the case as though the defendant were guilty or innocent (depending on the kind of lawyer), that does not mean that the lawyer themselves believes the defendant is innocent or guilty. And certainly, there are plenty of lawyers who do not put full effort into a case and press as hard as possible, because they don't feel that they are fighting for the proper verdict.
I think it's a little different, if in my southern racist example if the courts had created a distinction between Murder and "keeping the negroes in line" that had the same penalty, do you think the juries would have then said "oh ok, he IS guilty of that!" and sent the defendant off to the gallows? I think it's a more fundamental "what he did is not wrong at all and should not be punished".
I mean I understand the positives in a case where the laws are legitimately antiquated (e.g. the various anti-sodomy laws) and the jury says "yea ok that's silly". But I feel they could have achieved the same thing by actually voting to get rid of the anti-sodomy law.
Meanwhile for the negative cases, no one is seriously going to abolish murder laws, and yet the possibility of "I really like the defendant so he gets a pass" exists (I always think of the fictional example of Clay Davis in The Wire where he outright confesses to his crimes while on the stand but does so in a very sympathetic way and boom, not guilty).
A case in my jurisdiction involved a loving husband actively help his dying wife commit suicide. The facts were really heartbreaking. Even though by the strict definition he'd committed murder, everyone in the process agreed the story was just too sad for him to go to jail for life - law or no law. In the end, he was charged and found guilty of assisted suicide. He got a two year suspended sentence.
In this case it was everyone but the jury - the prosecutor, the defence, the judge - who nullified the law, but the fact remains. The letter of the law can be as unjust as discretion.
We could change the law but we haven't; and until we did that man would have been in jail.
The concept of juries always seemed pretty unfair to me.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
It goes further, in that if you actually are somehow specifically qualified for a given case you were randomly chosen for, odds are one side or the other will have you removed.
That's pretty lame.
While I certainly wouldn't claim it was a more democratic process, I do prefer trial by judicial officials ("bench trials") for this reason--it's entire possible said officials are biased (in fact, there are plenty of historical examples of political bias being rampant). However, I do think you could say the same thing about x randomly selected people--just without any semblance of training, knowledge of procedure, or even the bare minimalist of qualification due to exclusions.
Of course, I'm from a civil law country. So my experience is reflected by my upbringing, along with the fact that I think said country has made tremendous strides in criminal trials--from being a militarized, capitalist one-party state with a crime court reflecting that to a politically diverse (to the point of disorder at times), highly regimented, procedural country with a criminal prosecution bureaucracy I trust much more than that of the United States, all within my lifetime.
I think one of the reasons that I dislike our current jury system less than the alternatives is that we have such a huge problem with institutional corruption in the legal system in this country, and that jury system helps to insulate against that a little bit.
I'm not saying it's ideal by any means; I think it's awful. But I have trouble picturing a professional jury system in this country that doesn't just turn in to a rubber stamp for the police and DA.
I agree that a professional jury would defeat the purpose.
I just feel like due process is complicated. I don't care as much about ignorant voters. You want to vote for a President because you like his smile or his party affiliation or whatever? Fine, that's your right. I'm not certain that your criteria are worse than those of the most educated and careful voter.
But you want to vote someone guilty of a crime because you want to go home, or because he's guilty of other stuff so probably this too, or whatever... no, that's interfering with a fundamental right of your fellow citizen. Your ignorance is unfair to him. And I don't think that the sanctity of the jury is more important than being fair to the accused.
I wouldn't dispute the fact that the United States has huge problems with institutional corruption in large part because it doesn't consider blatantly obvious acts of institutional corruption to be corrupt, but considers them normal (I've done numerous rants about it, but my favored example is the idea of financial regulation being led and administered by individuals who have committed some of the most flagrant violations of said regulations, and are respected for the fact). If it happens somewhere else, it's corruption, but if happens in your own country, it's freedom of enterprise or the mark of a liberal society, according to the popular view.
Plus, at least here (here being Georgia), there's an overwhelming culture of "assumed guilt", even on lesser offenses, among jury bodies. I know it was there when I was called up for jury duty (thankfully I was cycled out and never called back). That would more than undo any notion that regular juries could overcome institutional corruption creeping into the prosecution system, at least in my mind.
Of course, maybe I'm severely underestimating how much corruption has crept into criminal prosecution over here. And I wouldn't be surprised if juries are better in other parts of the country.
Plus, "professional jury" seems like an oxymoron. Isn't the point of a jury trial for it to be by laymen?
I agree that a professional jury would defeat the purpose.
I just feel like due process is complicated. I don't care as much about ignorant voters. You want to vote for a President because you like his smile or his party affiliation or whatever? Fine, that's your right. I'm not certain that your criteria are worse than those of the most educated and careful voter.
But you want to vote someone guilty of a crime because you want to go home, or because he's guilty of other stuff so probably this too, or whatever... no, that's interfering with a fundamental right of your fellow citizen. Your ignorance is unfair to him.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I find that completely appalling. I'm just not sure that I've heard an alternative I think would be an improvement.
Posts
This is why red states are the poorest in the Union.
Random selection means you get the most random people, not the most qualified for a specific type of case. A lot of average people are pretty fucking stupid, I wouldn't want amateurs deciding my fate.
Yeah but we're also talking negligence. If they had just left like, you know, 1 sponge in her that'd be completely different than 9 and a surgical tool. You don't do that, that's stupid. That's "lol let's just sew her up." How do you not see 9 surgical sponges in someone's body before you close them up?
That's why it's 1 million, and if you ask me, it should've been 20.
So 50-60 years ago in the South when a jury would decide that, despite the mountains of evidence, those good 'ol boys are completely innocent of killing that black man/burning down that black church/etc. what was that a "great check" to?
If "the law grows too far out of touch with the common man" the check on that is VOTING to get the laws changed, either through electing new officials who support those platforms or (if you locally have) referendums/propositions.
We've had this come up in a previous thread a while back, where many people were eager to say jury nullification is somehow great and important when to me it seems completely immoral and reprehensible. Even in your example of OJ Simpson they let a guilty man walk free, and you're fine with it because (you assume) it was motivated by an underlying political motivation you share. You don't see how that's ridiculously problematic? I mean, explain to me why that's ok but the southern jury letting the Klansman free isn't, because these two are identical in my mind.
If we had to pick a stereotype to explain this I would go with the operating surgeon telling flunky surgeon to come in and close the woman up because by god he was late for his tee time and completely spacing on the fact that there was still gear inside her.
Also I could understand losing a sponge or two, though certainly not nine, and not being aware of it but a surgical tool? When an operating tray comes back short after the procedure is done do you go "those things are like socks, magically disappears in the washer".
It goes further, in that if you actually are somehow specifically qualified for a given case you were randomly chosen for, odds are one side or the other will have you removed.
Yeah 1-2 could be hard to find if they soaked up enough blood, they'd probably look just like any tissue in your gut. 9 though? And a surgical tool?
Most lap sponges (surgical sponge) are just collections of gauze if I recall,so you can see why losing a single/double would be possible. 9 though seems extraordinary. And the tool itself seals the deal. It was probably one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forceps, which, I could see losing track of if something chaotic happened.
That's pretty lame.
Losing tools is still pretty shocking these days. They're supposed to do a mandatory count of all the instruments after surgery for precisely this reason - to make sure they didn't leave anything inside.
Also a 'winner premium' like in auctions, and so tax code changes, so the jury doesn't need to do the whole "damages -taxes-lawyersfees" math.
Does the jury know what charity will receive the money before hand?
Are religious charities viable choices?
Who chooses the charity?
The losing defendant?
The plaintiff?
1)The IRS already does this.
2)No, too biasing.
3)Yes, see IRS
4+5)Winner of case, Judge can deny.
But juries shouldn't have to deal with that kind of stuff, it should be decided on by the lawyers and judge.
I agree on the 1m being circumstantially appropriate, my comment is more that for a large company, a 1m hit would be a rounding error in its accounting. Say GE did something complete negligent. Even if it made the person completely unable to work, You average person with a BA will maybe make $2m in their lifetime, double that for P&S and you get $4m. GE won't notice $4m, but at the same time trying to sell a jury on $10m or $20m or $40m in compensation is going up an ever steeper slope.
Sure, it can happen, and can affect the outcome of trials. But it is also lying under oath and is wholly unethical. At least here it is. I took an oath, more than once during this, to decide the case based on the law, the facts, and the instructions given by the judge. I swore under oath specifically that I would not decide based on what I thought the sentence might be, or because I had a philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious problem with the law in general or with the charges against the defendant, etc. In theory, our decision is what it is no matter what, just like in theory the testimony of a witness as to what they directly witnessed is considered a fact in the case. But the jury is legally charged to determine if any testimony might be false, just as the judge is legally charged to determine if the jury may have decided the case according to improper and illegal deliberation. At the end of the day, the ultimate goal is not to sanctify the jury, but rather to ensure due process and a fair trial are served to the defendant.
Lying in court is illegal. Jury nullification is not. You have the right to jury nullification no matter what oath you took or what the judge told you.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If anything the payouts should be hidden from jurors. They should only be deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty of negligence/crime. Not whether the payout is substantial enough, or that they feel wronged because they didn't get a payout when their doctor left a suture in.
However the courts have affirmed repeatedly that jury nullification is a constitutional right, even if agents of the court are not expected to facilitate the exercise of that right.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Murders have gotten nullified, as Lanlaorn described above. On the other hand, jury nullification has also prevented ex-slaves from being convicted under the fugitive slave laws, protected anti-war protesters, and prevented convictions under prohibition.
We could probably go back and forth all day over whether the consequences of jury nullification throughout US history add up to a net positive or a net negative and never reach agreement.
I support jury nullification because I believe that requiring a juror to act against the weight of his or her own conscience presents more problems than it solves.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm sure it would've been accounted for it they didn't want it to happen. After all, the origin system was a bunch of rich white dudes in wigs sentencing people regardless of a trial or not.
I don't think that really works though. Ideally it would lead to the hospitals to better their behaviour, but what is likely to happen is that they try to cover it up or rely on the courts to find them not at fault. The person didn't get the million dollars after all.
Yeah... Think of Youtube comments. These are your peers.
Jury trials in civil cases don't really bother me. Both sides get to be involved in the jury selection process, so it tends to even out when it comes to getting a favorable jury.
Rigorous Scholarship
You've got a point there and I can't completely answer it, but I can say that where I live, jury nullification has some positives.
Hitting and killing someone with a car you were driving (criminally) negligently is called "dangerous driving causing death". Any other kind of criminal negligence causing death fits under one of the types of "manslaughter". However, they both have the same jail term on the books. So what's the big deal? Labelling.
It used to all be "manslaughter". But juries were unhappy with finding people guilty of "manslaughter" for something they could see themselves doing quite easily (driving stupidly for a minute and killing someone). So while the punishment hasn't changed the name has. What you call an offence is important to people. People like jurors, and people like employers. If you were my employee - or wanted to become one - I might not bother to ask you how you committed "manslaughter" before showing you the door. On the other hand, I might understand if you'd committed "dangerous driving causing death". Juries were sending a signal - one that would never have been sent by elections.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
I've always said the bulk of punitive damages should be used to fund representation, particularly in civil cases, for those who can demonstrate a financial need for it.
I think it's a little different, if in my southern racist example if the courts had created a distinction between Murder and "keeping the negroes in line" that had the same penalty, do you think the juries would have then said "oh ok, he IS guilty of that!" and sent the defendant off to the gallows? I think it's a more fundamental "what he did is not wrong at all and should not be punished".
I mean I understand the positives in a case where the laws are legitimately antiquated (e.g. the various anti-sodomy laws) and the jury says "yea ok that's silly". But I feel they could have achieved the same thing by actually voting to get rid of the anti-sodomy law.
Meanwhile for the negative cases, no one is seriously going to abolish murder laws, and yet the possibility of "I really like the defendant so he gets a pass" exists (I always think of the fictional example of Clay Davis in The Wire where he outright confesses to his crimes while on the stand but does so in a very sympathetic way and boom, not guilty).
I have to be pedantic and point out that while their jobs require them to pursue the case as though the defendant were guilty or innocent (depending on the kind of lawyer), that does not mean that the lawyer themselves believes the defendant is innocent or guilty. And certainly, there are plenty of lawyers who do not put full effort into a case and press as hard as possible, because they don't feel that they are fighting for the proper verdict.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
A case in my jurisdiction involved a loving husband actively help his dying wife commit suicide. The facts were really heartbreaking. Even though by the strict definition he'd committed murder, everyone in the process agreed the story was just too sad for him to go to jail for life - law or no law. In the end, he was charged and found guilty of assisted suicide. He got a two year suspended sentence.
In this case it was everyone but the jury - the prosecutor, the defence, the judge - who nullified the law, but the fact remains. The letter of the law can be as unjust as discretion.
We could change the law but we haven't; and until we did that man would have been in jail.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
While I certainly wouldn't claim it was a more democratic process, I do prefer trial by judicial officials ("bench trials") for this reason--it's entire possible said officials are biased (in fact, there are plenty of historical examples of political bias being rampant). However, I do think you could say the same thing about x randomly selected people--just without any semblance of training, knowledge of procedure, or even the bare minimalist of qualification due to exclusions.
Of course, I'm from a civil law country. So my experience is reflected by my upbringing, along with the fact that I think said country has made tremendous strides in criminal trials--from being a militarized, capitalist one-party state with a crime court reflecting that to a politically diverse (to the point of disorder at times), highly regimented, procedural country with a criminal prosecution bureaucracy I trust much more than that of the United States, all within my lifetime.
Then again, I live in Georgia right now.
I'm not saying it's ideal by any means; I think it's awful. But I have trouble picturing a professional jury system in this country that doesn't just turn in to a rubber stamp for the police and DA.
I just feel like due process is complicated. I don't care as much about ignorant voters. You want to vote for a President because you like his smile or his party affiliation or whatever? Fine, that's your right. I'm not certain that your criteria are worse than those of the most educated and careful voter.
But you want to vote someone guilty of a crime because you want to go home, or because he's guilty of other stuff so probably this too, or whatever... no, that's interfering with a fundamental right of your fellow citizen. Your ignorance is unfair to him. And I don't think that the sanctity of the jury is more important than being fair to the accused.
Plus, at least here (here being Georgia), there's an overwhelming culture of "assumed guilt", even on lesser offenses, among jury bodies. I know it was there when I was called up for jury duty (thankfully I was cycled out and never called back). That would more than undo any notion that regular juries could overcome institutional corruption creeping into the prosecution system, at least in my mind.
Of course, maybe I'm severely underestimating how much corruption has crept into criminal prosecution over here. And I wouldn't be surprised if juries are better in other parts of the country.
Plus, "professional jury" seems like an oxymoron. Isn't the point of a jury trial for it to be by laymen?
Ideally, that should be covered in public education.
Ideally.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.