User:Ndo8/sandbox

bold

This is my sandbox page. Ndo8 (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This will be the sandbox page for the article Jury instructions. Ndo8 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nick's Ideas for the Article
While reading through the article, I noticed how there is not much of a flow that can be easily followed, and the subject of the matter that is being talked about can change without a prior notice. (i.e. in the vague "United States" heading, the topic changes from what the jury can be told per instructions to surveys about incomprehensible instructions.) One thing I would like to do is subcategorize more items on the article so that there is a clearer understanding of what is being talked about, like adding more headings and separating topics a little more. The second thing would be to reword or rearrange some of the topics discussed to produce a better flow, as while they are good topics to talk about, it does not look like they are represented clearly enough, and some details could be hiding away as a result. Talking about studying cases without trying to explain why instructions might not be understandable seems too eager of a move, so I would like to elaborate on that aspect first. I noticed in the "Jury nullification instructions" section that nearly the whole second half is completely quoted by another source, which is already not a great sight. The language that the quotations are written in are not easy words to translate to a person that might stumble upon the page, and it feels confusing in general. I would like to review the entire quote and see what the purpose of including a giant quote like that is, and see how I could revise it to make it more concise and easier to read. Ndo8 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Better organize topics discussed
 * Review citations and quotations

Nick's First Draft
UPDATE: Any additional comments or plans will be italicized bracketed as of this second look of the draft. Ndo8 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My first goal would be to explicitly show when a different topic is being presented, in which the reader knows when they are reading about one or if they are reading another. This occurs under the "United States" heading, where after the first two paragraphs there, the topic shifts slightly from what happens in American courts to the perceptions of that, in which the latter arguably warrants enough discussion to be mentioned separately. The following is the suggested change that I would be making under the United States heading, with the change italicized.

{{quote|...Many jurisdictions are now instructing jurors not to communicate about the case through social networking services like Facebook and Twitter.

Incomprehensibility with jury instructions
[Some jury instructions have been observed to be confusing and hard to understand by jurors due to how they are given the instructions.] In one study, citizens willing to impose the death penalty were...}}

This small inclusion with another heading would make it easier to identify what the next topic will be about as well as emphasize the fact that it is another topic worth mentioning in another section for the information that it has. [The inclusion of the opening sentence also makes the transition flow smoother into what will be talked about.]

The other thing I am looking at is the use of quotations in the final paragraph of the article. Since the paragraph was both quoted and cited, and therefore not stealing someone else's words, it is not considered plagiarism. The citation that the paragraph was written holds the exact same words as what was put in the article. The reference itself also does not seem to hold copyright restrictions, so it does not appear to be copyrighted either. Despite all this, it is not convenient for a huge quote to be inserted into a Wikipedia article if the goal of using that quote is to concisely describe what is happening. The following is my attempt to paraphrasing these quotes and, as a result of the process, to try and pinpoint the main points of them to find the reason to why they were included. The changes are italicized.

"The inclusion of jury nullifications within jury instructions is a debated topic, where at least two sides on the issue have been identified. One side explains that instructions permitting jury nullification is to be criticized as promoting chaos, as it brings the decision between having a structured set of rules and having less of said rules for a more free set of choices that could also promote the likes or anarchy and tyranny. The other side explains that a jury instruction about jury nullification would do the opposite and could allow jury deliberation to possibly prevent decisions that are beyond the court's doing from being allowed. This would also imply that an anarchy already exists in the legal system."

Presenting information like this would make understanding the author's words that are used outside of his context easier to read while hopefully presenting information that is just as accurate at the same time. Ndo8 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nathan's Proposal (Taken from his sandbox by Cakers01 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC))
Some thoughts on improving the article Jury instructions be its own article, it just needs fleshing out.
 * Talk page recommended rolling this into the jury_trial article, but I disagree. This article is important enough to
 * Add more examples of what recent studies have found regarding jury comprehension of jury instructions.
 * Add 'Janet Randall' to source list, and discuss findings and recommendations in the expanded article. She conducted two studies of the comprehensibility of Massachusetts civil jury instructions, with undergrads as the subject. One study "found significant improvements (a) when instructions were rewritten in 'Plain English' - with passive verbs (Ferreira 2003) and 'legalese' (Diana & Reder 2006) minimized - and (b) when subjects could read as they listened." (Randall, J., L. Graf & N. Clarke (2015) Improving juror comprehension: reading while listening. Presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting 2015, Portland, OR.
 * Add more specific examples of jury instructions, such as the example given in the existing article. In California, the instructions to the jury in civil cases were revised to make them easier to understand.
 * Add sentence explaining this article mainly focuses on U.S. jury trials, and is not indicative of how juries in other countries are instructed.