Hacker News Reader

Comment by pkaye | Hacker News Reader

As compensation they should increase the probability of them being called by 10x for the next few years.

If the goal of a jury is to be unbiased toward the person on trial (attempt equal representation from the citizenry), wouldn't biasing the selection now violate the right of the defendant to trial by jury of peers as much as the instance in question? We would do well to remember that the objective of jury selection is not to give all groups equal representation simply for the sake of fairness but to give the defendant a fair, unbiased jury for a trial.

It wouldn't be fair to today's defendants to do this, just as some sort of "justice" for those of yesterday.

It’s the thinking that underlines blood sacrifice: if we ritually commit an injustice, it will atone for past injustice.

The defendants who were previously found guilty under the old jury selection can ask for a second trial under this new jury. Any the young people who were deprived of jury duty also get a chance.

A jury that is 10x more likely to have youth? Not necessarily any more just. That's not right either. Couldn't we just strive for a just jury?

There is nothing yet that says anyone convicted has a right to a new trial based on this information, the supreme court granted a stay until the case, and the effect of this error can determined.

That doesn't make any sense. There is no right to be a juror; rather, the defendant has a right to a jury of his peers. So the affected defendants deserve compensation, not those excluded from the jury pool.

It says "About 15 percent of Americans are called for jury duty each year". Multiply that by 10x and get 150%. But I thought someone can only be called for jury once per year.

I guess you could increase the chance of being called only for those who haven't been called yet.

People could be called for jury duty either in the state/county/local court system, or the federal court system. Few criminal cases go to a jury trail, since >90% of them plead out (aka plea bargain: plead guilty to lesser charges).

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-criminal-cases-a...

Being called for jury duty is a mild inconvenience. Serving on a jury for more than a few days can be a significant inconvenience, but most people should be glad to serve if they like having a right to trail by jury.

Some counties in California like to call a lot of people often for jury duty, and send most of them home without serving. Many judges will consider "but I already served as a juror for X days this/last year" when deciding whether to have a prospective juror to serve or not.

California uses both DMV driver's license and county voter databases to generate jury pool lists. The merge algorithm is, well, simple. If you have a DL as J. Random Hacker and vote as John R. Hacker, you are very likely to get called for jury duty twice as often.

I would rather think that past trials would be the ones affected, and then be eligible for retrial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com