Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Thread beginning with comment 545752
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Jury qualifications?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Jury qualifications?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

but trials are instead decided by a qualified judge or panel of judges.


Jury trials is one of those foreign concepts I just can't wrap my brain around, no matter how much I try. A bunch of idio... Sorry, "peers', who have no desire to do what they do, get to decide guilty or no. Even if you only have a tiny modicum of knowledge about the workings of the human mind, you should know full well how utterly nutterly butterly this is.

Every person who ever ends up in court - traffic violation or murder - should be judged by people who know their shit and who are trained to do so - not by a bunch of bored morons.

Edited 2012-12-18 20:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Jury qualifications?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It is a strategic legal maneuver if you wish to appeal to emotion, something a panel of 12 people are more susceptible to.

You do have the right in most jurisdictions to waive a Jury trial.

Jury trials are not as common as people would think, a lot of cases are decided before they even get to trial.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by HappyGod on Wed 19th Dec 2012 08:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Jury qualifications?"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Wow, that is one cynical view you've got there!

It's pretty annoying that this kind of arrogance has crept into the left. The assumption that the public are all idiots has led us to such fantastic decisions as:

1. Speed cameras.
2. Many thousands of health warnings on everything.
3. Bans/limits on alcohol, tobacco.

The original left movement was one of faith and optimism in the general public, and the view that people were capable of deciding their own fate. Whence came socialism, communism etc.

This has now been replaced with an arrogant, cynical view that people are simple minded idiots who need hand-holding. This is clearly revealed by those annoying folks who are constantly trying to "raise awareness", which is a nice way of saying: "brow beat the plebs into caring about things I think they should care about".

It's a pretty short hop from the view that people are too stupid to be on a jury, to thinking that they are too stupid to vote.

Here's someone explaining personal freedoms a lot better than I can:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/09/cpt_20120924.mp3

Edited 2012-12-19 08:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Jury qualifications?
by saso on Wed 19th Dec 2012 08:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Jury qualifications?"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

The assumption that the public are all idiots has led us to such fantastic decisions as:

It is no assumption that the average person is highly susceptible to a myriad of cognitive biases, especially in high-stakes cases. Attorneys in common law systems are educated how to exploit these biases, there are practices for favorable jury selection based on case, etc.

1. Speed cameras.
2. Many thousands of health warnings on everything.
3. Bans/limits on alcohol, tobacco.

You are espousing a trivial libertarian ideological standpoint, that given freedom, people would know what's best for them - essentially a form of radical libertarianism. That is factually just plain not true. Besides example 2 (which I'm not sure about), both 1 (traffic regulations in general) and 3 (regulation of hazardous substances) have, as a matter of fact, reduced deaths among the general populace from these risks.

This has now been replaced with an arrogant, cynical view that people are simple minded idiots who need hand-holding.

Again, an extreme libertarian viewpoint. What you fail to appreciate is that humans are a social species and thus we form superorganisms called "societies". These are more than the simple sum of the capabilities of their members, and thus work naturally to protect themselves from harmful influences. This needs to be balanced with individual concerns, or the society devolves into a tyranny.

It's a pretty short hop from the view that people are too stupid to be on a jury, to thinking that they are too stupid to vote.

Perhaps saying that some people are too stupid to vote isn't that crazy after all. Look at the 2008 presidential election in the US - how on Earth was it possible that somebody as vapid as Sarah Palin stood a real chance of being elected to the second highest office in America? Or 2012 and Romney's comments that he believes in an apocalyptic return of Jesus to the Mount of Olives. A doomsday loonie stood a very real chance of being elected president in a country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth. When you have somebody like that in office (elected by popular vote, mind you!), is this: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdKuLRmg8k ] really such a remote scenario?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Jury qualifications?
by stestagg on Wed 19th Dec 2012 13:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Jury qualifications?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

You're right, in principal.

Unfortunately, the one thing that jury trials are very good at defending against is corruption and institutional unfairness.

Juries are not perfect, by any means, but without a judicial system that has public engagement, and can be trusted by even the type of person who makes up a usual jury, it's hard to be able to rely on in to be fair.

In this case, I would argue against a jury trial, the matters being decided are too abstract* for untrained people to appreciate, but for normal cases, jury trials are like democracy.. shit, but less shit than the alternatives.

* legal abstractions, not conceptual abstractions

Reply Parent Score: 2