All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Of what is this 'evidence'?

2 replies | 2 unread | updated about 12 hours ago

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

28 replies | 28 unread | updated about 13 hours ago

Feedback [11-30-20]

44 replies | 44 unread | updated about 14 hours ago

Thanksgiving Thread

19 replies | 19 unread

Peremptory Challenges [11-23-2020]

77 replies | 77 unread

Feedback [11-17-20]

57 replies | 57 unread

Your questions, doubts and concerns about confrontation and cross as core jury process.

22 replies | 22 unread

Feedback November 10

17 replies | 17 unread

Feedback [11-09-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Discussion Group 2 [11-9-2020]

19 replies | 19 unread

Discussion Group 1 [11-9-2020]

28 replies | 28 unread

Election Night

25 replies | 25 unread

George Fisher Caves [11-03-2020]

29 replies | 29 unread

Group 1 [11-03-2020]

53 replies | 53 unread

Group 2 [11-03-2020]

49 replies | 49 unread

Group 3 [11-03-2020]

35 replies | 35 unread

Feedback 11-2-2020

34 replies | 34 unread

Feedback 10-27-2020

47 replies | 47 unread

Discussion 10-27-2020

59 replies | 59 unread

Feedback 10-26-2020

51 replies | 51 unread

Hypothetical 10-19-20

49 replies | 49 unread

Feedback 10-20-2020

15 replies | 15 unread

Feedback 10-19-20

22 replies | 22 unread

Surveillance 10-19-20

46 replies

Feedback October 13, 2020

20 replies | 20 unread

i&i

31 replies | 31 unread

REVIEW - October 13, 2020. Please offer questions and concerns.

3 replies | 3 unread

Feedback Oct 6, 2020 - violence of discussion for some

7 replies | 7 unread

Feedback October 6, 2020

67 replies | 67 unread

Feedback Oct 5, 2020 Fair

4 replies | 4 unread

Gatecrasher - Who Wins?

15 replies | 15 unread

Blue Bus

25 replies | 25 unread

Conjunction --In what order should we decide the elements of the alleged crime?

21 replies | 21 unread

Prison Yard - Can WE prosecute all of them?

38 replies | 38 unread

Feedback [09-29-20]

17 replies | 17 unread

Would you be interested in joining together in threads while watching the Trump-Biden debate?

20 replies | 20 unread

feedback sept 28

26 replies | 26 unread

What is your biggest fear going forward?

40 replies | 40 unread

BIAS (in judgmen)t

9 replies | 9 unread

Feedback #1

30 replies | 30 unread

racism - anti-racism

41 replies | 41 unread

what is your passion?

40 replies | 40 unread

What do you feel you have to learn about fair trial? Do you feel that fair trial matters?

9 replies | 9 unread

Give Thanks

0 replies

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: Address the question of why you feel either it's right or wrong that jury process should be subject to surveillance and whether you differentiate forms of surveillance (whether a written affidavit is different from a digital recording)
Pinwheel: I don't think surveillance is appropriate. Odds are good that at some point in a deliberation, a juror will say something that could be be seen as problematic. This would open every jury deliberation up to questioning
Sunflower: I'm highly skeptical that we should be at least digitally surveilling juries. Anyone else feel this could be misused by the government in a potentially dangerous way?
Chulak: It is completely and utterly wrong to engage in surveillance of jury deliberations.
Langara: Yes @sunflower
Nastrog: No, I'm not willing to give in to government surveillance just because that surveillance is pitched as antiracist
Centaurus A: I think I like the idea of jury deliberations being scrutinized for racism
Nastrog: it will lead to terrible outcomes
Maribor: No, judges already refuse to instruct on jury nullification (i.e. they have stripped away the jury's ability to apply law). An eye in the sky would strip away the jury's ability to interpret facts as well. It concentrates too much power in the judge's hands.
Mars: I think on digital recording it to be harder to discuss some complicated ideas due to fear of getting "clipped" the wrong way but overall it would make people just be more careful about saying something racist and/or would better check rouge jurors who would want to say bias things if it was fully closed
Hagge: if every jury surveliance reveals jury bias, doesnt that mean that we should reform juries not turn a blind eye?
Saturn: Yes to recording classes. No to recording juries, but I think written affidavits should be allowed for the defense
Io: juror surveillance just gives judge's excuses to pick apart verdicts. There's always gonna be something said that a judge could exploit. In some cases this would be good for social justice, in others bad. end of day it means less jury power and thus less democracy
Iapetus: On the one hand, I think it’s a terrible idea to record people during this process (digital recording). 1. People are working through complex concepts and might ask or say something in an attempt to understand that they do not want to be wedded to. 2. The idea that someone could later see this might make people afraid to be too sympathetic to defendants (and I really don’t want that) 3. Who will have access to the videos later would influence my decision.
Triangulum: As a general matter, I think that the jury process should not be subject to surveillance. Instead of recording jury deliberations or accepting affidavits after the verdict, we should encourage jurors to report potential misconduct before a verdict is rendered.
Dione: I think it is wrong for any jury surveillance whatsoever. Surveillance would chill the jury's deliberation to an unacceptable level and stifle people speaking honestly about their opinions and ideas. I think rule 606 adequately captures the few exceptions we need to this rule. I similarly don't think its a wise idea in classrooms either.
Iapetus: On the one hand, I think it’s a terrible idea to record people during this process (digital recording). 1. People are working through complex concepts and might ask or say something in an attempt to understand that they do not want to be wedded to. 2. The idea that someone could later see this might make people afraid to be too sympathetic to defendants (and I really don’t want that) 3. Who will have access to the videos later would influence my decision.
Iapetus: On the one hand, I think it’s a terrible idea to record people during this process (digital recording). 1. People are working through complex concepts and might ask or say something in an attempt to understand that they do not want to be wedded to. 2. The idea that someone could later see this might make people afraid to be too sympathetic to defendants (and I really don’t want that) 3. Who will have access to the videos later would influence my decision.
Blackeye: Surveillance could influence the way jurors proceed. They might avoid tough questions or honest debate if they are concerned about surveillance. Scrutiny for racism could occur through different means, but I think this kind of surveillance would cause more harm than good.
Maribor: Also who is to say judges are any less racist than jurors -- eye in the sky unlikely to solve anything
Mandalore: If a judge didn't like the outcome of the case, the judge would just watch the recording and find any reason to say there was bias or external information or whatever
Metinna: I think surveillance of jury deliberations is a very scary idea. It is the first step towards (tacit or explicit) control of the jury by the government. Basically, we want the jury determination to be a black box that the government cannot see inside, but we want to make sure that certain things are not in that black box (i.e. prejudicial bias). I think the rules as they are as good a way to do that as any.
Pinwheel: What is the point of surveilling class discussions for racism? There is no material harm (like a wrongful conviction) if people express views that others feel are racist. It's just a perspective that you don't like
Utapau: I wouldn't start with surveillance but I would expand the exceptions for questioning a jury's deliberations. But if surveillance can keep the jurors anonymous, I'm not sure this will totally chill discussion
Langara: I agree with @Maribor and @Mercury...it makes me uncomfortable as hell that shady stuff is said in deliberations, but surveillance is just another way we strip the jury of its power
Tigg: No surveillance. It will only discourage people to speak up. It's hard to be perfectly honest when everything you say is on record.
Sunflower: could there be an instruction to jurors before deliberation that they are allowed to raise post-trial concerns of unfair bias?
Nilfgaard: I think that a digital recording is much clearer than an affidavit even though review of the recording is still subject to a judge's interpretation. I also think that a juror will not come to the same conclusion meaning that they will be hampered by the eye in the sky. I feel for the same reason that both a law classroom where you look for open dialogue in order to promote higher level learning and in a courtroom where you are asking people to truthfully judge not just to go based on their publicly visible view. So no I dont like surveillance because it draws different conclusions than those in the nymity space.
Blackeye: Recording classes is different--I am in favor of recording them for many reasons, one of which is putting a check on offensive comments and behavior (and having a record of it). In class, we are dealing with completely different dynamics from juror deliberations.
Io: We should record classes so I can tell on all the people I don't like and make them lose their job
Hagge: Im not sure that i buy that racism is just a perspective that you don't like
Blackeye: There is massive material harm if classmates express racism
Polaris: The idea that we would surveil classes to protect against racism doesn't sound like what's at stake. There are a lot of reasons to record classes - students can go back to review them whether they were in class and confused or couldn't make it. But the idea that we wouldn't record classes to protect freedom of expression prioritizes protecting people who would say something inflammatory in class.
Tigg: Surveillance in classrooms? Definitely no. People are already reluctant when it comes to saying how they really feel because the majority may disagree with their opinion. The tyranny of the majority exists here and now. Why reinforce that?
Chulak: I think that the occurrence of problematic behavior in jury deliberations is incredibly small and the threat of surveillance incredibly strong. Seems like overkill to solve a problem that relatively speaking seems minor
Langara: I like the idea of a jury instruction about it
Blackeye: @Mustafar it goes far beyond views one doesn't like.
Ahch-To: I agree @blackeye. Similarly to our class, people are less likely to state their thoughts, opinions, and pose arguments when they know they are being recorded.
Kernow: surveillance would likely do more harm than good, as it usually does. But especially so in the context of jury deliberations - where a closed space exists for inward deliberation, without pretenses of outward optics. Of course any decision, jurors know, will ultimately reach the public - and in that regard the optics /public pressure is at play. But I don't think the use of surveillance will create a better system - because who would monitor? Who then controls jury deliberations? this would ultimately shift power away from the members of the jury, and into the hands of those who monitor and control surveillance
Tethys: Surveillance is scary and bad for jury deliberations for all the reasons stated above. It is tough, though, thinking about what should happen if the judge gets affidavits like he got in Pena. Since there's no check, that could lead to a lot of cases just getting thrown out if juries disagree
Metinna: Some people want to record classes to "put a check on offensive behavior." That is the same as shutting down ideas that you don't like.
Whirlpool: how much different/greater is the chilling effect between an affidavit and a video recording
Tethys: ^astronomical
Whirlpool: What about a video recording that has censors
Whirlpool: you're being recorded and if need be when that recording is made public everyone has a blur on their face
Whirlpool: it gives you an idea as to how we got to a conclusion and preserves anonymity