Who should be on a Jury?

[Brian Shanahan]

I'm with choice no.1 here. Tempting and all as it is Downtown is only one man-god, he cannot be everywhere at once to judge us.

As long as the selection process is random, and not influenced by the prejudices of any of the participants, and as long as the jurors are willing to give due consideration to the evidence presented (good way to ensure this, charge them with contempt if they are not) then I see no problem with being tried by my peers.

The closest I've been to jury was being called but not selected for a murder trial, and, when working for Clare Co. Co. on college work experience, being on call for the local district court in minor cases (well every member of the council staff was).

 

[Zelig]

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.

Jurors aren't selected based on their ability to judge, they're selected based on their likelihood of returning positive results to those doing the selecting.

 

[illram]

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.

Once selected they tend to take it fairly seriously.

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.

People would select professionals that favor them, then. I am not sure how this is mitigated by professionals. Anyways we have professional jurors, they're called arbitrators.

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.

Juror's get the law they need to know when they need to know it. Jury instructions are pretty straightforward and give them the law in accessible easy to understand language, and if they don't get the law they ask questions about it. Do they screw it up? Sure. So do Judges!

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.

Ideally each party gets an equal opportunity to mislead the jurors in our system. With professionals they might not get misled as much as they obstinately cling to false beliefs and/or become corrupt. Or people play favorites. Happens in the arbitration system. (Select handful of arbitrators favored by corporate counsels get chosen to arbitrate agreements where parties to the contract are locked into arbitration in case anything goes wrong.)

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.

I don't follow.

 

[tycoonist]

Once selected they tend to take it fairly seriously.

I'll just leave this here:

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.

People would select professionals that favor them, then. I am not sure how this is mitigated by professionals. Anyways we have professional jurors, they're called arbitrators.

Professionals would be picked to be less biased, and would be more intelligent. It would ease the selection process.

Juror's get the law they need to know when they need to know it. Jury instructions are pretty straightforward and give them the law in accessible easy to understand language, and if they don't get the law they ask questions about it. Do they screw it up? Sure. So do Judges!

Study law for four years, learn all you need to know in ten minutes. Yeah, I'm buying that.

Ideally each party gets an equal opportunity to mislead the jurors in our system. With professionals they might not get misled as much as they obstinately cling to false beliefs and/or become corrupt. Or people play favorites. Happens in the arbitration system. (Select handful of arbitrators favored by corporate counsels get chosen to arbitrate agreements where parties to the contract are locked into arbitration in case anything goes wrong.)

We both know that each party most certainly does not get the same chance to mislead, even if the lawyers are of the same standard. See, for example, the common statistical errors made by lawyers: i.e. prosecutors fallacy etc.

Corruption would be a problem with arbitrators, but this could be very stictly moderated and punished very strongly.

I don't follow. c

If most cases are either obvious or not, then we don't need jurors. If a case is obvious, then we don't need them. If a case is not obvious, it should be dismissed anyway.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Jurors aren't selected based on their ability to judge, they're selected based on their likelihood of returning positive results to those doing the selecting.

From my limited experience that is complete nonsense. They were specifically trying to find people who were intelligent enough to serve as jurors, diligent enough to not fall asleep, and impartial enough so that they would at least try to judge the case on the facts presented.

If it was as you suggest, the prosecutor would have been trying to find staunch conservatives who think anybody who has been arrested is guilty, the defense would have been trying to find minorities who feel they have been victimized by the police, and the judge wouldn't have taken part at all. Instead, they all worked to deliberately weed these people out.

 

[Rashiminos]

tycoonist wants to cite the errors of the professionals on one hand, and then trust them with handling the law on the other.

Trying to have it both ways?

 

[Ataxerxes]

From my limited experience that is complete nonsense. They were specifically trying to find people who were intelligent enough to serve as jurors, diligent enough to not fall asleep, and impartial enough so that they would at least try to judge the case on the facts presented.

If it was as you suggest, the prosecutor would have been trying to find staunch conservatives who think anybody who has been arrested is guilty, the defense would have been trying to find minorities who feel they have been victimized by the police, and the judge wouldn't have taken part at all. Instead, they all worked to deliberately weed these people out.

This is often the case. Attorneys for both sides are trying to weed out the extremes to get the middle.

I do favor professional jurists even though I'm an American. I agree that most people when selected do try to do a good job. Eliminates the one day jury selection process and you do get people who understand what they are judging. A lot of cases call for enough specialized knowledge that the jurors should have areas they are good at. Corruption of a juror under this system (or any system) should have a similar punishment to a corrupt judge.

I'm a staunch conservative who was the first one weeded out in a civil trial for damages. My viewpoints that I wouldn't award mental anguish damages and that there was such a thing as personal responsibility didn't sit well with the plaintiff's attorney.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

they might not get misled as much as they obstinately cling to false beliefs and/or become corrupt. Or people play favorites

And I am sure that never happens to the average person. Only professionals.

 

[JollyRoger]

My viewpoints that I wouldn't award mental anguish damages and that there was such a thing as personal responsibility didn't sit well with the plaintiff's attorney.

Should one be personally responsible if their actions cause someone else mental anguish?

 

[illram]

Professionals would be picked to be less biased, and would be more intelligent. It would ease the selection process.

What do you base this on?

Study law for four years, learn all you need to know in ten minutes. Yeah, I'm buying that.

A jury only needs to be instructed on a very narrow set of rules. The Judge basically gives them the sandbox they get to play in as far as the law. The Jury does not need to know the ins and outs of 1st amendment jurisprudence in a drunk driving case. They need to know what the vehicle code says.

Corruption would be a problem with arbitrators, but this could be very stictly moderated and punished very strongly.

But it's not? It's no secret arbitration favors big companies overwhelmingly. That's why every agreement with a big company you probably ever sign in your life has an arbitration agreement buried at the end.

If most cases are either obvious or not, then we don't need jurors. If a case is obvious, then we don't need them. If a case is not obvious, it should be dismissed anyway.

Not obvious cases should be dismissed? Who gets to make that decision?

 

[Quackers]

Juries stop the government winning politically important cases. I imagine a board of appointed judges will just toe the partyline - juries limit government and that is a good thing

 

[MobBoss]

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

No it doesnt.

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.

And that depends on the case, and the attorneys involved.

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.

The constitution says otherwise. Btw, I just gotta ask....you were one of the six picked?

 

[carmen510]

I think that only people with a relatively high degree of education or knowledge of civics and/or law should be allowed onto juries.

 

[MobBoss]

I think that only people with a relatively high degree of education or knowledge of civics and/or law should be allowed onto juries.

I'd be happy with someone who thinks murder/rape/theft is bad.

 

[*****]

Juries aren't just for getting guilty verdicts, they're also a tool to check abuse. Jury nullification is one way that the common citizen can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of government.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No it doesnt.

Oh. Because you say so. Got any "proof" to support this wacky allegation?

No And that depends on the case, and the attorneys involved.

So your contention is that many attorneys deliberately try to subvert the legal system in some sort of manner by not doing exactly as I described above? Once again, got "proof"? Have you ever even been part of a voir dire process? if not, how exactly do you know anything about it?

The constitution says otherwise.

Show me where it states that the typical clueless American has the right to serve on jury, especially in an important criminal case that uses voir dire specially to weed out the incompetent and the bigoted .

 

[JollyRoger]

I'd be happy with someone who thinks murder/rape/theft is bad.

Unless, of course, you end up on trial for such a crime.

 

[SG-17]

I like the Judge system.

 

[emzie]

Juries aren't just for getting guilty verdicts, they're also a tool to check abuse. Jury nullification is one way that the common citizen can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of government.

Believing in Jury nullification is a good way to not make it on to a jury.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Unless, of course, you end up on trial for such a crime.

Something tells me that Mobboss would never make it past the voir dire process. At least the one which I participated seemed to be quite interested in kicking the "law and order" crowd right out.

And this:

I'm a staunch conservative who was the first one weeded out in a civil trial for damages. My viewpoints that I wouldn't award mental anguish damages and that there was such a thing as personal responsibility didn't sit well with the plaintiff's attorney.