Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

The two concepts seem related, at least if we assume that jurors are reasonable. A single reasonable juror having a doubt indicates that the verdict is not beyond reasonable doubt. I agree that unanimity is not as obvious when the standard is "preponderance".

View on HN

I guess I should've said that it's a separate condition, rather than being unrelated. The standard each juror needs to consider when making their own determination is "beyond reasonable doubt" (or "preponderance" or "clear and convincing"), and in order for the verdict to be held by the jury it needs to be unanimous.

I think the assumption that jurors are invariably reasonable, as opposed to on average reasonable is a pretty heroic assumption not well supported by the history of trial by jury though.

And yet, the US legal system is built around such assumptions, invalid as they may be.

A jury selection process lets both sides of a case interview jurors and agree on impartial and reasonable jurors.

Estimates of wrongful conviction are between .13%-5% (wikipedia, miscarriage of justice), however the main thing that trial by jury affords is transparency and perception of fairness, since you are convicted by your peers and not some politician with questionable incentives.

Don't forget that the court decides what a jury gets to see or hear about a case. Juries are not perfect, but they are the best tool we have.

Further, the prosecutor has real power that far outweighs the power of the accused. Juries imperfectly provide an offset to that power imbalance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com