[submitted 21.10.19] 11 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

DRAFT 3: 23.9.19

TITLE:
11 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men

VALIDITY:
Courts and juries legal, Democracy

DESCRIPTION:
A recent high-profile murder case has been tied up in court for months because 11 of 12 jurors wanted to deliver a Guilty verdict, but the Judge's interpretation of some rather complex and archaic law is that a unanimous verdict is needed in this instance. Now, many are asking you for clarity as to the numbers needed for a jury verdict.

OPTION 1
"It's called democracy, dumbasses," rages head juror @@randomname@@, to the applause of five other jurors who seem enraptured by @@HIS@@ force of personality. "Forget 12 out of 12, or even 11 out of 12. In any jury, the majority vote should be carried. Only an exact split of six against six should require any further deliberation."

OUTCOME:
the courts operate on a principle of "probably did it" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"

OPTION 2
"What's the hurry to get home here?" asks unemployed actor and lone juror @@randomname@@, helping himself to the juror's buffet, and shuffling around comfortably in hotel slippers. "Unanimity is a safeguard against wrongful convictions, and is essential to proper justice. If a mere twelve people can't agree, then how can we say that an argument is sufficiently convincing? We should always demand jury unanimity. Hey, can I get a drink, please?"

OUTCOME:
the Mob only needs to corrupt one juror in twelve to escape justice

OPTION 3
"This isn't really the business of government," interjects Judge @@randomname@@, trying to eject you from the room. "You have an accredited legal profession, including expert judges like myself. We'll interpret the law according to our learned opinions, and then let you know exactly when a case needs unanimity, a supermajority, a majority, or indeed, if a jury is needed at all. Government must not interfere with the independent operation of the judicial legislature!"

OUTCOME:
most judges believe that juries should be seen but not heard

DRAFT 2 20.9.19:

TITLE:
11 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men

VALIDITY:
Courts and juries legal, Democracy

DESCRIPTION:
A recent high-profile murder case has been tied up in court for months because 11 of 12 jurors wanted to deliver a Guilty verdict, but the Judge's interpretation of some rather complex and archaic law is that a unanimous verdict is needed in this instance. Now, many are asking you for clarity as to the numbers needed for a jury verdict.

OPTION 1
"It's called democracy, dumbasses," rages head juror @@randomname@@, to the applause of five other jurors who seem enraptured by @@HIS@@ force of personality. "Forget 12 out of 12, or even 11 out of 12. In any jury, the majority vote should be carried. Only an exact split of six against six should require any further deliberation."

OUTCOME:
the courts operate on a principle of "probably did it" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"

OPTION 2
"What's the hurry to get home here?" asks unemployed actor and lone juror @@randomname@@, helping himself to the juror's buffet, and shuffling around comfortably in hotel slippers. "Unanimity is a safeguard against wrongful convictions, and is essential to proper justice. If a mere twelve people can't agree, then how can we say that an argument is sufficiently convincing? We should always demand jury unanimity. Hey, can I get a drink, please?"

OUTCOME:
the Mob only needs to corrupt one juror in twelve to escape justice

OPTION 3
"Frankly, my dear leader, I don't give a damn what you think," interjects Judge Rhett Gable, trying to eject you from the room. "You have an accredited legal profession, including expert judges like myself. We'll interpret the law according to our learned opinions, and then let you know exactly when a case needs unanimity, a supermajority, a majority, or indeed, if a jury is needed at all. Government must not interfere with the independent operation of the judicial legislature!"

OUTCOME:
most judges believe that juries should be seen but not heard

DRAFT 1:

I've broken one of my own rules here, using a "redundant" second sentence in the opening. The reason here is I want to respect player autonomy, and that means not implying that the current situation is of any particular set of rules. Trying to make it so that nobody can say "but my nation already only requires a majority".
I've used the 12-to-a-jury assumption, as there's issues precedent for this, but tried to make it so that the issue can still read right even if player nations have taken this decision before.
And yes, the title is a callback. Which is why I've even used a serial comma, which will please Trotterdam.

TITLE:
11 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men

VALIDITY:
Courts and juries legal, Democracy

DESCRIPTION:
A recent high profile murder case has been tied up in court for months because 11 of 12 jurors wanted to deliver a Guilty verdict, but the judge was demanding unanimity. This has sparked a lively debate around hung juries and majority judgements.

OPTION 1
"It's called democracy, dumbasses," rages head juror @@randomname@@, to the applause of five other jurors who seem enraptured by @@HIS@@ force of personality. "Forget 12 out of 12, or even 11 out of 12. In any jury, the majority vote should be carried. Only an exact split of six against six should require any deliberation."

OUTCOME:
the courts operate on a principle of "probably did it" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"

OPTION 2
"What's the hurry to get home here?" asks unemployed actor and lone juror @@randomname@@, helping himself to the juror's buffet, and shuffling around comfortably in hotel slippers. "Unanimity is a safeguard against wrongful convictions, and is essential to proper justice. Hey, can I get a drink, please?"

OUTCOME:
the Mob only needs to corrupt one juror in twelve to escape justice

OPTION 3
"Frankly, my dear leader, I don't give a damn what you think," interjects Judge Rhett Gable, trying to eject you from the room. "You have an accredited legal profession and you have judges. We'll interpret the law according to our expert opinions, and then let you know exactly when a case needs unanimity, a supermajority, a majority, or indeed, if a jury is needed at all. Government must not interfere with the independent operation of the judicial legislature!"

OUTCOME:
most judges believe that juries should be seen but not heard

[Trotterdam]

I've broken one of my own rules here, using a "redundant" second sentence in the opening. The reason here is I want to respect player autonomy, and that means not implying that the current situation is of any particular set of rules. Trying to make it so that nobody can say "but my nation already only requires a majority".

Unfortunately you undermine this with the "the judge was demanding unanimity", which implies that, at the very least, the judge has the authority to demand that. If the law already stipulated cases are to be decided by majority vote, a judge trying to do otherwise would quickly be disbarred for malpractice.

And yes, the title is a callback. Which is why I've even used a serial comma, which will please Trotterdam.

I guess I'll bug you about hyphens instead.

high-profile murder case

[SherpDaWerp]

If there's 12 jurors, then shouldn't the title be "12 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men"? Even if the last one is the one that won't agree, they would still be getting angry that they can't convince the others of their viewpoint. Furthermore, could it be @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ instead of men for gender-randomisation? (under the context of matriarchal societies etc) Although it depends if those suggestions would botch the callback...

In option 3,

You have an accredited legal profession and you have judges

seems a bit weird. I can't really get what it's trying to say. Should it be "you have accredited legal professionals as judges", or "you have an accredited legal industry"?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

If there's 12 jurors, then shouldn't the title be "12 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men"? Even if the last one is the one that won't agree, they would still be getting angry that they can't convince the others of their viewpoint. Furthermore, could it be @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ instead of men for gender-randomisation? (under the context of matriarchal societies etc) Although it depends if those suggestions would botch the callback...

There's already an issue called 12 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men, which in turn is a reference to the film 12 Angry Men. The title here calls back to both of those.
Also, only 11 of them are angry and tired, the other one is enjoying being a juror and is holding things up because he like staying in a hotel and being fed, as the speaker description applies,

In option 3,

You have an accredited legal profession and you have judges

seems a bit weird. I can't really get what it's trying to say. Should it be "you have accredited legal professionals as judges", or "you have an accredited legal industry"?

You're right. I'll change it to "You have an accredited legal profession, which includes expert judges like myself."

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Unfortunately you undermine this with the "the judge was demanding unanimity", which implies that, at the very least, the judge has the authority to demand that. If the law already stipulated cases are to be decided by majority vote, a judge trying to do otherwise would quickly be disbarred for malpractice.

Yeah, I may just revert to having it be assumed that unanimity is required then. Let handwavium take the inconsistencies of the repeat.

high-profile murder case

Oops, you're right.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Damn, I just realised that the Rhett Butler joke that I thought was so clever was totally stolen from Verdant Haven, who had it in his Gone with the Flood draft. Doh. That will disappear shortly.