Is it easier for the prosecution to make the jury think Facebook is guilty or for Facebook to make the jury think they are not? I don’t see why one would be easier, except if the jury would be prejudiced against Facebook already. Or is it just luck who the jury sides with?

▲

dylan604 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'd imagine Facebook looking for any potential juror in tech to be dismissed as quickly as possible while the prosecution would be looking to seat as many tech jurors they can luck their way into seating.

▲

azemetre 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean it totally depends what your views on democracy are. Juries are one of the few, likely only, practices taken from Ancient Athenian democracy which was truly led by the people. The fact that juries still work this way is a testament to the practice.

With this in mind, I personally believe groups will always come to better conclusions than individuals.

Being tried by 12 instead of 1 means more diversity of thought and opinion.

▲

tracker1 2 days ago | parent [-]

I mostly agree here, but would add there's definitely a social pressure to go along with the group a lot of the time, even in jury trials. How many people genuinely have the fortitude to stand up to a group of 10+ others with a countering pov.

	▲	azemetre a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't disagree, but think of the pressures a judge has as an individual as well. Pressures from the legal community, the electorate, and being seen as impartial. There is a wisdom of the crowd, and that wisdom comes in believing that we are all equal under the law. This wisdom is more self evident in democratic systems, like juries.