[amateur_soclgst]

Wait so this article is basically him saying that the system worked?

That's the impression that I got. Even disregarding his early learnings towards high-school level leftist protest and mistrust of the government, doesn't his careful consideration of the case show the reasons why we use a jury system? Even if the 'mob' e.g. the other jurors decide that a person is guilty, one or two reasonable arguments can decide otherwise.

It seems to me that everything worked out as it should. I wouldn't feel bad if I was the author. (oh and he'll be back in court, serving a case in most states only gives you a 3-5 year reprieve from jury duty)

[jrockway]

I think the conclusion from 12 Angry Men is "holy shit, what if Henry Fonda weren't there".

[amateur_soclgst]

Hrm, good point, didn't really think of it that way.

[jacobolus]

If you admit you were ever on a hung jury, you are much more likely to be struck from the list, so while the author will have to serve jury duty, there’s a good chance the author won’t be on another jury any time soon, especially in another serious case.

[geomark]

I wish that had worked for me. I served 3 times, first time was a hung jury, next two were burglary and battery. Terrible experiences all of them. Wish I could have been excused.

[desdiv]

Just curious, were you asked about your hung jury experience during the voir dire?

[thedudemabry]

I really enjoyed this article, but it made me realize that I don't have a good understanding the goals of the voir dire process. It reminded me of job interviews, where certain questions are off-limits in order to hopefully limit the effects of some of the personal biases of the interviewer.

From a game design point of view, it's fascinating. The selection process attempts to give both opponents an equal chance of eliminating undesired pieces from the board. But from the system's point of view, balancing that power against the delivery of justice as innocent-until-proven-guilty/burden-of-proof/reasonable-doubt seems kinda suspect.

I'm totally going down the rabbithole reading about this over the weekend :)

[geomark]

Yes. They asked if I had served on a jury before and if the jury had reached a verdict. The battery case was the second time I served. I answered yes that I had served and no the jury did not reach a verdict. They then asked what the prior case was about - maybe since it wasn't related they didn't boot me. The third time I served it was a burglary case so I answered that yes I had served twice before, once was a hung jury and once we arrived at a verdict. No further questions.

[the_ancient]

If you believe what is described in this article is working and healthy justice system then I am sad for you.

[puredemo]

Sure, letting a murderer off who signed a confession is pretty daft.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Sure, letting a murderer off

http://www.falseconfessions.org/fact-a-figures

[puredemo]

Noo, he "signed a blank piece of paper," remember?

[forrestthewoods]

I believe his point is that although it worked in this instance it seems likely that it DOESN'T work in many other cases.

Then again 10 people would argue the system doesn't work because 2 stubborn knuckleheads refused to issue a guilty verdict when that obviously should have been the ruling.