Who should be on a Jury?

[downtown]

Some countries have citizen juries. Others apparently use serious professionals. Still others decided that this silly idea of due process is simply too much trouble, and hand down judgments from mountains, often on stone tablets.

Who should be the guys on a jury? What are the advantages and disadvantages? I know different countries do different things...is one....better?

 

[Zelig]

I see the jury selection process in practice as more of a problem than the legal requirements for serving.

 

[de Maistre]

Wouldn't professional jurors be highly susceptible to corruption?

 

[sophie]

I see the jury selection process in practice as more of a problem than the legal requirements for serving.

This.

 

[Scratch]

Thunderdome, two men enter, one man leaves. I guess the government ought to hire professional thugs to be the district attorneys.

More seriously, one time I was thinking how maybe there ought to be professional jurists, but I was worried about some form of corruption in that situation -- as the jurors would be known to the prosecutors and attorneys, and there could end up being ways for trying to stack juries. That already happens some, but the juror pool in a a system with professional jurors would be much more known, especially over time. There could even be statistical tracking and analysis.

So I don't know.

 

[MobBoss]

I tend to think it a good thing that the average citizen gets to partake every now and then of the judicial process.

 

[downtown]

Wouldn't professional jurors be highly susceptible to corruption?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but why do you think that would be the case, when compared to the randoms? Do you think that there wouldn't be a non-political way to hire them?

 

[holy king]

juries have the tremendous advantage that they make trials more public.

 

[de Maistre]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but why do you think that would be the case, when compared to the randoms? Do you think that there wouldn't be a non-political way to hire them?

Random people don't have connections.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I tend to think it a good thing that the average citizen gets to partake every now and then of the judicial process.

The current system tries to exclude that possibility from ever occurring as much as it possibly can, at least for the major criminal cases.

In my particular case, the voir dire process consisted of selecting 6 jurors out of over 60 people. The attorneys and the judge were apparently looking for reasonably intelligent people with decent educations who were not overtly prejudiced, hence the large number of candidates versus the number actually selected.

The truth of the matter is that the average American is no more qualified to serve on a jury than he is to be the President of the United States.

 

[warpus]

Doesn't 'peer' generally refer to someone from your neighbourhood, class, ethnicity, etc.? Let's get rid of that wording - but continue to select jury members randomly from the public.

 

[GinandTonic]

Im ok with complex financial fraud cases not having citizen juries.

 

[tycoonist]

I'm with formaldehyde here: most people are completely unqualified to decide how the law should be applied. They are welcome to vote on what the laws are, but enforcing them is a different matter, one that should be left to the government.

 

[Zelig]

Doesn't 'peer' generally refer to someone from your neighbourhood, class, ethnicity, etc.? Let's get rid of that wording - but continue to select jury members randomly from the public.

I'm pretty sure "peer" refers to not a lawyer, judge, etc.

 

[SuperJay]

Professional jurors?? I was unaware that there was such a thing.

I was on a jury years ago, and it was a pretty eye-opening experience. Definitely shook my faith in our (American) justice system, and in the priorities of my fellow jurors. We effectively let a sexual molestor walk free because it was late, and people wanted to be home in time for dinner.

 

[Supr49er]

I'm fine with citizen juries.
However, Grand Juries seem mysterious to me. People called before them can't even bring an Attorney.

 

[illram]

I'm with formaldehyde here: most people are completely unqualified to decide how the law should be applied. They are welcome to vote on what the laws are, but enforcing them is a different matter, one that should be left to the government.

Why? Arguably the decision on what the law should be is far more complex and nuanced than deciding who it applies to and for what reason.

Anyways juries don't necessarily "enforce" the law, as much as they merely get to have the say on what the facts are under whatever law applies to the case they are deciding. The Judge tells them what the law is and how it is to be applied. Look at a jury instruction form: these are very formulaic; they say "if you decide X happened, then A; if you decide Y happened instead of X, then B. If you decide X and Y, then B." Etc. etc.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm with formaldehyde here: most people are completely unqualified to decide how the law should be applied. They are welcome to vote on what the laws are, but enforcing them is a different matter, one that should be left to the government.

"Qaddafi duck was right!"

 

[tycoonist]

Why? Arguably the decision on what the law should be is far more complex and nuanced than deciding who it applies to and for what reason.

Anyways juries don't necessarily "enforce" the law, as much as they merely get to have the say on what the facts are under whatever law applies to the case they are deciding. The Judge tells them what the law is and how it is to be applied. Look at a jury instruction form: these are very formulaic; they say "if you decide X happened, then A; if you decide Y happened instead of X, then B. If you decide X and Y, then B." Etc. etc.

1. As has been mentioned, most people don't want to do jury duty. There's reason one: if people don't want to do it, they won't pay attention to what's going on, and the judgement will be clouded by ignorance of the situation.

2. Juries are largely selected anyway: for good reason. You wouldn't want someone with an IQ of 70 judging you, and if it was me, I'd want people of a high IQ, not the average. Similarly, you wouldn't want, say a KKK member sitting in on a trial of a black guy accused of a crime. These problems can be mitigated by professional selection, most people simply aren't qualified to judge.

3. Jurors don't have a good understanding of the law. Or at least not as good as a professional's would be. This would reduce the number of mistrials.

4. Jurors can be easily misled by lawyers. Professionals would be less easily misled, and so would reduce the dominance of higher payed lawyers at trials.

4. The jurors don't get to decide what the law is. They only have to decide whether they think the crime was commited or not. If it's in any doubt, the person should not really be convicted anyway. Therefore, the fundamental purpose of the jury is somewhat invalidated.

 

[Rashiminos]

1) Those jurors tend to select themselves out. People do actively seek to avoid jury duty by pretending to be things they really aren't.

2) Agreed.

3) They can be instructed about the law, usually by a judge, among other things.

4) The lawyers (and judges) are the professionals. If you cannot trust the lawyers to not mislead, then to whom would you bestow the responsibility of applying the law in terms of a trial?

(and yes, the professionals can mislead each other)

4,ii) The wrongful enforcement of the law does not invalidate the jury's purpose with regard to justice under the law. The state can and does make "mistakes."