Date: 24/04/2026 09:54:36
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 2383907
Subject: Court Jurors
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?
This would cost. Too Much.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?
Trained in law specifically for jurors, not law they don’t need.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?This would cost. Too Much.
Yes it would cost.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?
Training in the law is the judge’s responsibility. The role of jurors is to provide input into the legal process from members of the community.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?This would cost. Too Much.
They are ways to bring down training costs.
Online training.
Focus on law matters only for jurors.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?Training in the law is the judge’s responsibility. The role of jurors is to provide input into the legal process from members of the community.
No.
It is every one’s responsibility
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?Training in the law is the judge’s responsibility. The role of jurors is to provide input into the legal process from members of the community.
No.
It is every one’s responsibility
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?Training in the law is the judge’s responsibility. The role of jurors is to provide input into the legal process from members of the community.
No.
It is every one’s responsibility
I’m not seeking to change law.
Only to improve the jurors responsibilities in understanding law specifically for jurors.
The judge has final say in responsibility.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?This would cost. Too Much.
They are ways to bring down training costs.
Online training.
Focus on law matters only for jurors.
Maybe not all cases need jury training ?
Only for certain cases?
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.
The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should court jurors be trained in law say for 2 weeks~ before sitting in a trial?This would cost. Too Much.
They are ways to bring down training costs.
Online training.
Focus on law matters only for jurors.
The more important part is to not do independent research on the parties involved in the trial
Usually causes a mistrial and creates all sorts of problems.
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
So, I would strongly advocate against any particular legal training for jurors.
I would also caution that any specific legal training for jurors might damage or even break the system. I think the notion is extremely dangerous.
(Note that the Judge instructs the jury at the opening of proceedings, and before the start of deliberations, and sometimes during proceedings. The jury can ask questions of the Judge during deliberations.)
just train them in civics
Michael V said:
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
So, I would strongly advocate against any particular legal training for jurors.
I would also caution that any specific legal training for jurors might damage or even break the system. I think the notion is extremely dangerous.
(Note that the Judge instructs the jury at the opening of proceedings, and before the start of deliberations, and sometimes during proceedings. The jury can ask questions of the Judge during deliberations.)
Agree.
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:This would cost. Too Much.
They are ways to bring down training costs.
Online training.
Focus on law matters only for jurors.
Maybe not all cases need jury training ?
Only for certain cases?
1 On line training.
2 Short courses.
3 Focus only on law concerning jurors.
4 Not all cases need trained jurors.
5 Bring AI into the jury room with tight rules.
wait so are people supposed to know the law or not, is ignorance an excuse
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
Thanks MV. You said it better than I did.
It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
SCIENCE said:
wait so are people supposed to know the law or not, is ignorance an excuse
^
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
Thanks MV. You said it better than I did.It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Holy Cow!
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
Thanks MV. You said it better than I did.It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:wait so are people supposed to know the law or not, is ignorance an excuse
^
A dichotomy between those that know law and those that do not.
Can we have some intelligence in the courts.
An equality of knowledge.
Fairness.
Informed jurors.
Divine Angel said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Thanks MV. You said it better than I did.
It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
Jurors are informed throughout the case of arguments for and aganist. Their only job is to agree on a verdict.
Training can be a few pages of A4.
It’s what’s on it that’s important.
Divine Angel said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Thanks MV. You said it better than I did.
It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
What about that crowd that decided the possibility that a baby might have been carried off by a dingo did not constitute “reasonable doubt”?
roughbarked said:
Divine Angel said:
Tau.Neutrino said:It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
Jurors are informed throughout the case of arguments for and aganist. Their only job is to agree on a verdict.
Yes. But I’m seeking better informed jurors in law matters concerning their case.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Divine Angel said:Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
Jurors are informed throughout the case of arguments for and aganist. Their only job is to agree on a verdict.
Yes. But I’m seeking better informed jurors in law matters concerning their case.
In what way would this make them better able to agree?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Divine Angel said:
Tau.Neutrino said:It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
What about that crowd that decided the possibility that a baby might have been carried off by a dingo did not constitute “reasonable doubt”?
If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit. OJ’s case had nothing to do with jurors not knowing the law (everyone knows murder is a crime), and everything to do with the defence planting enough reasonable doubt that OJ wasn’t responsible.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Divine Angel said:
Tau.Neutrino said:It’s the jurors decisions that I want to improve.
>>Jurors are not supposed to know the law.
What a load of rubbish.
They should be informed so they can make better decisions.
Geez. !
Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
What about that crowd that decided the possibility that a baby might have been carried off by a dingo did not constitute “reasonable doubt”?
What if that crowd had been better informed, would they have made the same decision ?
What about all the other law cases where informed jurors would have made better decisions.
AI Overview:
In Australian courts, jurors are allowed and encouraged to put questions of law, as well as evidence or procedure, to the judge for clarification. While the judge decides questions of law and the jury decides facts, the jury must understand the legal instructions to reach a fair verdict, making such clarifications necessary.
How Questions are Handled:
Procedure: The jury foreperson writes the question down and passes it to a jury officer (bailiff), who gives it to the trial judge.
Confidentiality: Individual jurors can also pass a note directly to a officer if they do not want to discuss the question with the foreperson.
Process: The judge typically discusses the question with counsel (lawyers) before answering it in open court.
Timing: Questions of law should generally be answered before a verdict is taken, according to case law like R v Hickey .
Important Limitations:
No Outside Research: Jurors are strictly forbidden from conducting their own research, such as using the internet, to find answers, which is a criminal offence.
Not Involved in Evidence: While they can ask for clarification, jurors are generally not allowed to directly question witnesses.
Focus on Directions: The judge provides a “summing up” and directions on the law, which the jury must follow.
If a jury shows confusion about a legal principle or definition, they should ask for a “further direction”.
Hey Tau, watch this show and come back when you’ve seen how jurors might react to a case
The Jury: Death on the Staircase streaming now on SBS On Demand (I can’t get a link, but you’ll be able to find it online and streaming on SBS)
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Divine Angel said:Can you cite some cases where jurors didn’t agree with your verdict?
What about that crowd that decided the possibility that a baby might have been carried off by a dingo did not constitute “reasonable doubt”?
What if that crowd had been better informed, would they have made the same decision ?
What about all the other law cases where informed jurors would have made better decisions.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:Jurors are informed throughout the case of arguments for and aganist. Their only job is to agree on a verdict.
Yes. But I’m seeking better informed jurors in law matters concerning their case.
In what way would this make them better able to agree?
By being better informed.
Would you prefer an uninformed jury to an informed jury?
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/going-to-court/jury/faqs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Expectations of jurors
Are jurors required to be experts on the law?
You are not required to be an expert on the law or to have any other area of special knowledge.
You have been selected at random to be a juror for the purpose of bringing with you the range of knowledge and skills you have as a member of the general community.
The Trial Judge will assist the jury by giving directions on the law. A jury must comply with directions given by the Trial Judge.
—————————————————————————-
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/crime/criminal-trial-processes/the-role-of-juries/
“The community receives important… benefits from a trial by jury in the involvement of the public in the administration of justice and in keeping the law in touch with the community standards.”
– Justice Yehia at R v White NSWSC 1369
The judge gives the jury directions: The presiding judge provides jurors with legal instructions to ensure they focus on evidence in the trial and apply legal principles correctly. Before deliberations begin, the judge also gives the jury a “summing up” to explain the law and instruct jurors on their responsibilities. This process aims to minimise errors or unfair verdicts. To ensure consistency, the script for judges for these instructions are given in the “Bench Book,” a guide containing all required procedures that judges must follow to ensure equality and fairness in court.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:What about that crowd that decided the possibility that a baby might have been carried off by a dingo did not constitute “reasonable doubt”?
What if that crowd had been better informed, would they have made the same decision ?
What about all the other law cases where informed jurors would have made better decisions.
Define better decision.
Good question.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes. But I’m seeking better informed jurors in law matters concerning their case.
In what way would this make them better able to agree?
By being better informed.
Would you prefer an uninformed jury to an informed jury?
If they aren’t informed then they aren’t listening or are deaf.
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:What if that crowd had been better informed, would they have made the same decision ?
What about all the other law cases where informed jurors would have made better decisions.
Define better decision.Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Define better decision.
Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
The only thing they need to be informed about are the facts of the case in question. The judge is required to handle many cases.
The coins have already been flipped. The jury only have to decide whether they are displaying heads or tails
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:They are ways to bring down training costs.
Online training.
Focus on law matters only for jurors.
Maybe not all cases need jury training ?
Only for certain cases?
1 On line training.
2 Short courses.
3 Focus only on law concerning jurors.
4 Not all cases need trained jurors.
5 Bring AI into the jury room with tight rules.
I thought of AI as an aid to a magistrate or judge
Not to make decisions but to check the outcome is lawful.
At times sentences by magistrates or judges are illegal as they don’t follow legislation.
This means they have to go back to court to be ammended
Our prosecutors are good at picking this up and informing the magistrates the sentence is illegal
They aren’t always there though and its also somewhat intimidating to try and correct them
Don’t need no godam jury, get the rope Leroy.
Bubblecar said:
AI Overview:In Australian courts, jurors are allowed and encouraged to put questions of law, as well as evidence or procedure, to the judge for clarification. While the judge decides questions of law and the jury decides facts, the jury must understand the legal instructions to reach a fair verdict, making such clarifications necessary.
How Questions are Handled:
Procedure: The jury foreperson writes the question down and passes it to a jury officer (bailiff), who gives it to the trial judge.
Confidentiality: Individual jurors can also pass a note directly to a officer if they do not want to discuss the question with the foreperson.
Process: The judge typically discusses the question with counsel (lawyers) before answering it in open court.
Timing: Questions of law should generally be answered before a verdict is taken, according to case law like R v Hickey .Important Limitations:
No Outside Research: Jurors are strictly forbidden from conducting their own research, such as using the internet, to find answers, which is a criminal offence.
Not Involved in Evidence: While they can ask for clarification, jurors are generally not allowed to directly question witnesses.
Focus on Directions: The judge provides a “summing up” and directions on the law, which the jury must follow.If a jury shows confusion about a legal principle or definition, they should ask for a “further direction”.
Ok, thanks for that Bubblecar.
Possibly the hard part is for jurors not to make a decision based on emotion.
If you as juror had a personal bias or emotional trigger about a particular crime it should be noted.
I don’t think you find out the crime until after you have been selected
So perhaps this is part of a form you fill out stating something that might affect your decision making ability.
Peak Warming Man said:
Don’t need no godam jury, get the rope Leroy.
Oh, please don’t kill us!
Please, please don’t kill us!
It wasn’t my fault!
I ran out of gas!
I had a flat tire!
I didn’t have money for cab fare!
My tux didn’t come back
from the cleaners.
And old friend came in
from out of town!
Someone stole my car! There was
an earthquake! A terrible flood!
Locusts! It wasn’t my fault,
I swear ta Gaaaaaaaaaaaahd!
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Maybe not all cases need jury training ?
Only for certain cases?
1 On line training.
2 Short courses.
3 Focus only on law concerning jurors.
4 Not all cases need trained jurors.
5 Bring AI into the jury room with tight rules.I thought of AI as an aid to a magistrate or judge
Not to make decisions but to check the outcome is lawful.
At times sentences by magistrates or judges are illegal as they don’t follow legislation.
This means they have to go back to court to be ammended
Our prosecutors are good at picking this up and informing the magistrates the sentence is illegal
They aren’t always there though and its also somewhat intimidating to try and correct them
Ok thanks for that information Cymek.
It’s interesting seeing how things work.
But I’ve never been happy with juries, I see it as a weakness.
But that’s how it is.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:1 On line training.
2 Short courses.
3 Focus only on law concerning jurors.
4 Not all cases need trained jurors.
5 Bring AI into the jury room with tight rules.I thought of AI as an aid to a magistrate or judge
Not to make decisions but to check the outcome is lawful.
At times sentences by magistrates or judges are illegal as they don’t follow legislation.
This means they have to go back to court to be ammended
Our prosecutors are good at picking this up and informing the magistrates the sentence is illegal
They aren’t always there though and its also somewhat intimidating to try and correct them
Ok thanks for that information Cymek.
It’s interesting seeing how things work.
But I’ve never been happy with juries, I see it as a weakness.
But that’s how it is.
pretty sure if the purpose of a jury is to decide whether an allegation is proven to a given standard, then that purpose would be best served by having intelligences, natural or otherwise, trained in logic and confined to ivory towers
Cymek said:
Possibly the hard part is for jurors not to make a decision based on emotion.
If you as juror had a personal bias or emotional trigger about a particular crime it should be noted.
I don’t think you find out the crime until after you have been selected
So perhaps this is part of a form you fill out stating something that might affect your decision making ability.
^
Good point, emotional intelligence.
so basically what we’re saying is that civil law jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:I thought of AI as an aid to a magistrate or judge
Not to make decisions but to check the outcome is lawful.
At times sentences by magistrates or judges are illegal as they don’t follow legislation.
This means they have to go back to court to be ammended
Our prosecutors are good at picking this up and informing the magistrates the sentence is illegal
They aren’t always there though and its also somewhat intimidating to try and correct them
Ok thanks for that information Cymek.
It’s interesting seeing how things work.
But I’ve never been happy with juries, I see it as a weakness.
But that’s how it is.
pretty sure if the purpose of a jury is to decide whether an allegation is proven to a given standard, then that purpose would be best served by having intelligences, natural or otherwise, trained in logic and confined to ivory towers
I’m seeking juries having better understanding in ethics and logic and better understanding in how emotions can affect their decision-making.
SCIENCE said:
so basically what we’re saying is that civil law jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed
Would court outcomes improve if juries were improved?
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:so basically what we’re saying is that civil law jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed
Would court outcomes improve if juries were improved?
What if AI replaced jurors? AI could look at all points law concerning a case.
Or
What if we had both.
Keep the jury system and have a separate AI system looking at each case.
?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:so basically what we’re saying is that civil law jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed
Would court outcomes improve if juries were improved?
What if AI replaced jurors? AI could look at all points law concerning a case.
Or
What if we had both.
Keep the jury system and have a separate AI system looking at each case.
?
I see juries as flawed, the rest of the law system is OK.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Define better decision.
Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
Defendants can choose to have a judge only trial.
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:so basically what we’re saying is that civil law jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed
Would court outcomes improve if juries were improved?
Who gets to decide what is an improved outcome?
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
Defendants can choose to have a judge only trial.
Yes I heard that does it apply to all cases?
SCIENCE said:
so basically what we’re saying is that civil law jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed
It’s only a small flaw, not a large one, on a scale of 1 to 10 it would rate around a 3.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
Defendants can choose to have a judge only trial.
Not everywhere. Over in WA they are quite rare and only granted in cases where there has been extensive media hype and speculation etc and therefore the court thinks the person might not get a fair consideration from the jury.
Juries are meant to bring the perspective of ordinary citizens into the justice process, not to function as pseudo-legal professionals. If jurors were trained in law, they could become less representative of the community and more influenced by a legalistic way of thinking which shifts decision-making away from shared community judgment and toward strict legal interpretations. It’s considered a good thing that juries are not legal professionals, and have no more understanding of the law than any average person in the community.
The logical extension of the OP question is that all juries be composed entirely of people with law degrees. This would undermine the purpose of juries in our judicial system.
so there is general agreement that juries should be trained in law because they should represent the community and the community should also be trained in law
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
Defendants can choose to have a judge only trial.
I think this is recommended by the defence lawyer if emotion may sway the jury
I know from what I’ve experienced sentencing delays is a big problem.
Specialist reports can be requested for sentencing and the most complex of these has a waiting time of 20 weeks.
If something goes wrong and the report request is missed or the offender doesn’t attend the interview this waiting starts again.
So sentencing could be delayed almost a year
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:Good question.
What if all the jurors had the same level of knowledge as a judge?
Would the jurors be making better decisions?
Defendants can choose to have a judge only trial.
I think that’s only in certain circumstances such as the surrounding publicity of a case can you request a judge only trial.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Jurors are not supposed to know the law. They are supposed to be peers of the accused.The job of the prosecutor is to convince the jury (made of jurors) that beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has broken the rules of society as codified in the laws of society.
The job of the defendant’s lawyer is to convince the jurors that there is reasonable doubt.
The job of the jury is to decide between these opposing arguments, using only the facts presented in the court room.
Thanks MV. You said it better than I did.
I mean, technically the defense doesn’t have to do anything. The onus of proof is on the prosecution.
esselte said:
It’s considered a good thing that juries are not legal professionals
Actually, active lawyers are not eligible for jury service (in Queensland).
Would AI in the jury room assist jurors better than the current system of juror questions to balif to judge and back? That might speed up answers. Make better use of time.
I’m thinking a closed AI system that follows court rules, not an open AI system to the world.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Would AI in the jury room assist jurors better than the current system of juror questions to balif to judge and back? That might speed up answers. Make better use of time.I’m thinking a closed AI system that follows court rules, not an open AI system to the world.
all cases are different. Questions from jurors usually pertain to the specific case the court has heard. Someone mentioned that jurors already get some instruction on what they should or shouldn’t consider when deliberating, both in process and in judicial conditions… so any AI program used would have to be fed all of the court transcript to that point to be able to answer nearly all of the questions a jury may come back with. I guess that’s not impossible, but I doubt we are at the point of AI being so trusted that a judge wouldn’t want some oversight in that process anyway.
There is an issue with juries though – we don’t really provide them with enough supports post trial for any trauma they may have experienced. WHile there are some cursory supports, they dont address long term issues. Juries see some shit… and we don’t really account for how it affects them very well.
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Would AI in the jury room assist jurors better than the current system of juror questions to balif to judge and back? That might speed up answers. Make better use of time.I’m thinking a closed AI system that follows court rules, not an open AI system to the world.
all cases are different. Questions from jurors usually pertain to the specific case the court has heard. Someone mentioned that jurors already get some instruction on what they should or shouldn’t consider when deliberating, both in process and in judicial conditions… so any AI program used would have to be fed all of the court transcript to that point to be able to answer nearly all of the questions a jury may come back with. I guess that’s not impossible, but I doubt we are at the point of AI being so trusted that a judge wouldn’t want some oversight in that process anyway.
There is an issue with juries though – we don’t really provide them with enough supports post trial for any trauma they may have experienced. WHile there are some cursory supports, they dont address long term issues. Juries see some shit… and we don’t really account for how it affects them very well.
Agree.
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Would AI in the jury room assist jurors better than the current system of juror questions to balif to judge and back? That might speed up answers. Make better use of time.I’m thinking a closed AI system that follows court rules, not an open AI system to the world.
all cases are different. Questions from jurors usually pertain to the specific case the court has heard. Someone mentioned that jurors already get some instruction on what they should or shouldn’t consider when deliberating, both in process and in judicial conditions… so any AI program used would have to be fed all of the court transcript to that point to be able to answer nearly all of the questions a jury may come back with. I guess that’s not impossible, but I doubt we are at the point of AI being so trusted that a judge wouldn’t want some oversight in that process anyway.
There is an issue with juries though – we don’t really provide them with enough supports post trial for any trauma they may have experienced. WHile there are some cursory supports, they dont address long term issues. Juries see some shit… and we don’t really account for how it affects them very well.
Ok, thanks for that.