What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Juries and Jurors

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
17,133
Reaction score
6,076
Points
290
I've long been of the mind that we should end the jury system as we define it.

Why do we trust people with little or no knowledge of the law, science and forensics to make decisions on guilt or innocence?

Would a system with a professional jury pool of 6 where jurors who have a thorough understanding of the law and at least a working knowledge of forensics and other topics that so called expert witnesses testify to be able to render a better judgement of guilt or innocence?

A system with professional jurors would certainly get cases tried more quickly because weeks wouldn't be wasted in the attempt of the prosecution and the defense to stack the jury with people they think will be sympathetic to their cases.

Thoughts?
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
11,562
Points
1,360
No and there is no reason we have to allow the lawyers to pick the juries, we just do. It's another instance we simply refuse to say no and just play along. If you get called and get questioned simply say that you do not know anyone involved on either side and you will do your absolute best to find guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented. Anything else should be irrelevant.
 

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2021
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
4,284
Points
1,908
You have the right to REFUSE a trial by jury, and let the judge's verdict stand alone.
You also have the right to demand jurors be picked from specific groups of people......if the judge allows it.

SUPPOSEDLY, you get a trial by jury to have a FAIR and UNBIASED opinion from people who don't know you, don't know about your case, and have never heard of you. Judges hear and see the information in advance of the rest of the courtroom.......therefore they are more apt to make a decision before you ever SEE the courtroom, regardless of any information your lawyers have to the contrary.

But in this age of technology and instantaneous news and information.....AND PUBLIC OPINION...........the only people you will find that haven't heard of a court case that has gained notoriety, are laid up in the coma wards at hospitals, so there is a 99.99% probability that if YOU have jurors in a trial, it is likely they are there to make a name for themselves and don't give a shit about you.

If you had a jury of "professional" jurors, then you are more apt to have "hung" juries more often, as they would all be understanding and interpreting the laws in different ways.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
138,320
Reaction score
17,709
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
No and there is no reason we have to allow the lawyers to pick the juries, we just do. It's another instance we simply refuse to say no and just play along. If you get called and get questioned simply say that you do not know anyone involved on either side and you will do your absolute best to find guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented. Anything else should be irrelevant.

Really? So an openly racist juror is okay in the trial of a person of color?

An openly misogynist person is okay in the trial of a rapist?

Now, I only got called for Jury duty once in my life, and never got empaneled, but it was a case where a Hispanic kid shot a black kid. They rejected maybe three jurors, once of which because she was kind of a flaky animal rights kind of person.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
11,562
Points
1,360
Really? So an openly racist juror is okay in the trial of a person of color?

Sorry, do they have tattoo's on their head pointing them out?

An openly misogynist person is okay in the trial of a rapist?

Now, I only got called for Jury duty once in my life, and never got empaneled, but it was a case where a Hispanic kid shot a black kid. They rejected maybe three jurors, once of which because she was kind of a flaky animal rights kind of person.

Which would have nothing to do with finding for guilt or innocence.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
138,320
Reaction score
17,709
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
But in this age of technology and instantaneous news and information.....AND PUBLIC OPINION...........the only people you will find that haven't heard of a court case that has gained notoriety, are laid up in the coma wards at hospitals, so there is a 99.99% probability that if YOU have jurors in a trial, it is likely they are there to make a name for themselves and don't give a shit about you.

But how many cases are "notorious"? Maybe two or three a year?

I do agree, part of the problem is that we have outside information leaking in such cases. For instance, the Rittenhouse Jury never got to hear about how he hung out with the Racist Proud Boys after his release, or that his first victim was a mentally ill person who had been convicted of child abuse. It's hard to believe that information didn't leak in, though, and that probably made things harder, because the jury knew the lawyers were hiding shit from them.

I put more blame on the judge and the prosecutor for the Rittenhouse atrocity than the jury, though.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
138,320
Reaction score
17,709
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Sorry, do they have tattoo's on their head pointing them out?

No, but you can out a racist in a five minute conversation, usually.

Which would have nothing to do with finding for guilt or innocence.

They probably felt she was one of these people who wouldn't want to punish the little bastard. That's probably why they threw them out.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
11,562
Points
1,360
No, but you can out a racist in a five minute conversation, usually.
Which would be covered in the beginning. In a jury room, etc. Our laws call for a jury of your peers. Not a jury of people who think a certain way.

 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
138,320
Reaction score
17,709
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Which would be covered in the beginning. In a jury room, etc. Our laws call for a jury of your peers. Not a jury of people who think a certain way.

Again, what we end up with is a "Jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".

I agree with the OP. We need professional juries trained in law and forensics, not twelve morons without jobs waiting for the lunch bell to ring.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
11,562
Points
1,360
Again, what we end up with is a "Jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".
Screw off. You are the problem thinking you have to be stupid to want to serve on a jury. You are the problem.
 

SweetSue92

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
14,208
Reaction score
7,304
Points
1,065
Location
USA
I've long been of the mind that we should end the jury system as we define it.

Why do we trust people with little or no knowledge of the law, science and forensics to make decisions on guilt or innocence?

Would a system with a professional jury pool of 6 where jurors who have a thorough understanding of the law and at least a working knowledge of forensics and other topics that so called expert witnesses testify to be able to render a better judgement of guilt or innocence?

A system with professional jurors would certainly get cases tried more quickly because weeks wouldn't be wasted in the attempt of the prosecution and the defense to stack the jury with people they think will be sympathetic to their cases.

Thoughts?

No.

I give you the "experts" of epidemiology and the mess of this pandemic. The LAST thing we need are more "experts"
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
233,010
Reaction score
57,634
Points
2,190
I agree with the OP. We need professional juries trained in law and forensics, not twelve morons without jobs waiting for the lunch bell to ring.

The juries I was on took their duty very seriously.
Often more seriously than low level prosecutors and public defenders looking to push the case quickly through the system.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
11,562
Points
1,360
The juries I was on took their duty very seriously.
Often more seriously than low level prosecutors and public defenders looking to push the case quickly through the system.

I had the same experience. The "experts" were less professional than those who were called in for duty.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
17,133
Reaction score
6,076
Points
290
No and there is no reason we have to allow the lawyers to pick the juries, we just do. It's another instance we simply refuse to say no and just play along. If you get called and get questioned simply say that you do not know anyone involved on either side and you will do your absolute best to find guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented. Anything else should be irrelevant.
Why then use people with no understanding of the law or of the subjects of any expert testimony?

How can people with no understanding of these relevant issues come to an informed and reasoned decision on guilt or innocence?
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
17,133
Reaction score
6,076
Points
290
You have the right to REFUSE a trial by jury, and let the judge's verdict stand alone.
You also have the right to demand jurors be picked from specific groups of people......if the judge allows it.

SUPPOSEDLY, you get a trial by jury to have a FAIR and UNBIASED opinion from people who don't know you, don't know about your case, and have never heard of you. Judges hear and see the information in advance of the rest of the courtroom.......therefore they are more apt to make a decision before you ever SEE the courtroom, regardless of any information your lawyers have to the contrary.

But in this age of technology and instantaneous news and information.....AND PUBLIC OPINION...........the only people you will find that haven't heard of a court case that has gained notoriety, are laid up in the coma wards at hospitals, so there is a 99.99% probability that if YOU have jurors in a trial, it is likely they are there to make a name for themselves and don't give a shit about you.

If you had a jury of "professional" jurors, then you are more apt to have "hung" juries more often, as they would all be understanding and interpreting the laws in different ways.
None of that excludes a pool of professional jurors.

If a professional juror knows a defendant he can recuse himself from serving for that trial just like a judge or prosecutor does.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
17,133
Reaction score
6,076
Points
290
No.

I give you the "experts" of epidemiology and the mess of this pandemic. The LAST thing we need are more "experts"
Not experts just knowledgeable professionals rather than the average guy on the street who knows nothing of the law and who's eyes glaze over during expert witness testimony.
 

Desperado

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
35,440
Reaction score
9,660
Points
1,340
Why then use people with no understanding of the law or of the subjects of any expert testimony?

How can people with no understanding of these relevant issues come to an informed and reasoned decision on guilt or innocence?
They use their common sense, and can even invoke Jury Nullification
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
17,133
Reaction score
6,076
Points
290

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
37,175
Reaction score
11,562
Points
1,360
Why then use people with no understanding of the law or of the subjects of any expert testimony?

How can people with no understanding of these relevant issues come to an informed and reasoned decision on guilt or innocence?

That's what a prosecutor is supposed to explain.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
17,133
Reaction score
6,076
Points
290
That's what a prosecutor is supposed to explain.
And what if jurors can't grasp the concepts?

You think a person can become knowledgeable about the law, scientific testimony in the case of forensics or the workings of the the SEC and the intricacies of financial transactions by listening to the testimony of a person for an hour or so?

It takes years to be able to truly understand these things
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top