Hacker News
points by stephenlf 3 days ago | 0 comments
> Ten of the 12 jurors agreed, and Robin was found guilty by a majority verdict.

God bless America. I’m glad I’m here and not there.

[–] dang 3 days ago
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and particularly not nationalistic flamebait. That is easily avoided, unlike the flamewars that start raging once it appears.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[–] EliRivers 3 days ago
Do note that if only nine of the jurors agreed, he would not have been found guilty. "Majority verdict" doesn't mean a simple majority in these cases.
[–] everybodyknows 3 days ago
For an example of the sort of distress that the American unanimity requirement can impose on jurors, read A Trial By Jury, D. Graham Burnett.
[–] mkehrt 3 days ago
Yeah, I was really shocked to read that.
[–] IshKebab 3 days ago
Why though? Let's be real, juries are human and requiring a unanimous verdict will 90% of the time just mean that people that disagree with the majority will give in so that they get to go home.

There's no fundamental difference in justice, just minor differences in thresholds.

[–] maxbond 3 days ago
Have you ever served on a jury? It's easy to get out of jury duty. The people who really don't want to be there, usually aren't. When I did grand jury, everyone wanted to be there and was very engaged. To me this is like saying people aren't interested in juicy gossip, having an opinion, debating the smallest details, and wielding power - that's not been my experience.

But the bigger problem is that, if the process were really so precarious, then that's exactly why we would want stronger controls. There may be a good argument for a different threshold but it isn't this one.

[–] mkehrt 3 days ago
That's correct. We shouldn't be convicting people unless it's obvious.
[–] cowlevel 3 days ago
In the American system the 10 just convince the 2 to agree so they can all go home, and you just don't know how many actually agreed.
[–] EliRivers 3 days ago
Indeed. It is just a bit unfortunate that people often come to different, obvious conclusions.
[–] IshKebab 2 days ago
How obvious though? Obvious enough for 3 random people to agree? 10? 100?

You don't magically avoid a threshold just by saying "obvious".

[–] willchis 3 days ago
[–] alistairSH 3 days ago
Came to say something similar...

The US is first on prison population (total) and forth on rate on incarceration (behind El Salvador, Cuba, and Turkmenistan).

[–] Veserv 3 days ago
The odd thing is that the incarceration rate in the US is 542 per 100k, but the murderer rate is probably something like 200-350 per 100k.

5.9 homicides per 100k annually [1]. Assuming the average person who commits homicide commits 1 homicide in their lifetime (known homicide distributions support this) then that is 5.9 new murderers per 100k annually. Distributed over expected lifetime that would be 200-350 murderers per 100k.

So, if the US successfully imprisoned every murderer and only murderers, it would still be ~25th (~Nicaragua) to ~80th (~Russia). Nearly 2x the total incarceration rate of France and 3x the total incarceration rate of Germany if only murderers were incarcerated and we used the low estimate.

If we assume that homicide is relatively rare compared to severe physical violence that most nations consider worthy of incarceration, then just imprisoning all violent offenders in the US would likely require 1,000+ per 100k at the low end, over twice the actual rate in the US.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm