Juries and Jurors

[hjmick]

Is there a particular recent verdict that has prompted you to finally express your belief in "professional juries?" Perhaps knowing that would provide us all with some context, a frame of reference...

 

[Blues Man]

Is there a particular recent verdict that has prompted you to finally express your belief in "professional juries?" Perhaps knowing that would provide us all with some context, a frame of reference...

No. This isn't a new opinion. As I said in the OP I have held this position for quite a long time.

It just seems to me that a professional jury pool would streamline the process making it more efficient and these people would be able to make decisions based on a broader knowledge base of the testimonies than the average person.

 

[pknopp]

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

The point above is the best point that is going to be made here. The last thing we need is more "experts".

 

[Astrostar]

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?

Not an issue. The jury system worked great in Brunswick, GA, didn't it?

 

[Blues Man]

Not an issue. The jury system worked great in Brunswick, GA, didn't it?

Why because you agree with the verdict?

Our so called justice system needs an overhaul.

 

[Blues Man]

The point above is the best point that is going to be made here. The last thing we need is more "experts".

A person knowledgeable enough to critically and skeptically examine the validity of evidence is better that some yahoo off the street who can't follow technical testimony.

 

[pknopp]

Why because you agree with the verdict?

Our so called justice system needs an overhaul.

Absolutely.

 

[pknopp]

A person knowledgeable enough to critically and skeptically examine the validity of evidence is better that some yahoo off the street who can't follow technical testimony.

That's all covered. One juror can not throw a decision. They may make for a retrial but they can not throw a decision.

And really, for such a drastic change you need to prove there is a problem.

 

[JoeB131]

Screw off. You are the problem thinking you have to be stupid to want to serve on a jury. You are the problem.

I actually have a job and a business to run. I've really got better things to do.

And before you go whining "civic duty" or some such bullshit. 11 years in the Army. I've done my bit for God and Country, thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

No.

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

Islamophobic Twat, this epidemic was a mess because Trump DIDN'T listen to the experts. Countries that did got through it just fine.

 

[pknopp]

I actually have a job and a business to run. I've really got better things to do.

And before you go whining "civic duty" or some such bullshit. 11 years in the Army. I've done my bit for God and Country, thanks.

You didn't say "I dont want to do it". You said only those too stupid to get out of it serve on a jury.

It's not that hard to get out of serving if you have a valid reason.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

What you seem to be advocating for is an inquisitorial legal system based on civil law as found in France and much of Europe, as opposed to our adversarial system based on common law.

An inquisitorial legal system has no juries; guilt or innocence is determined by an investigation conducted by a judge. The accused is afforded a lawyer, but his role is to participate in the investigation to source out the facts and the truth.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

Who Rittenhouse hung with is irrelevant as this wasn't a "racist" issue. Rittenhouse is white, the people he shot were white rioters, the judge is white, the prosecutors and defense teams are white. Not a single black anywhere in this case, so if he did hang with any Proud Boys, that is irrelevant and would have been tossed out of the courtroom as evidence. This was a simple case of an armed person standing in front of some property in the hopes of deterring vandalism against it and while there, offering help to the injured. At no time did he raise his rifle to any who weren't acting in a threatening manner towards him.

 

[Blues Man]

That's all covered. One juror can not throw a decision. They may make for a retrial but they can not throw a decision.

And really, for such a drastic change you need to prove there is a problem.

You just agreed that our so called justice system needs an overhaul.

And how about the number of actual inn cent people who have served decades in prison or the innocent people who have been executed as proof there is a problem?

 

[Blues Man]

What you seem to be advocating for is an inquisitorial legal system based on civil law as found in France and much of Europe, as opposed to our adversarial system based on common law.

An inquisitorial legal system has no juries; guilt or innocence is determined by an investigation conducted by a judge. The accused is afforded a lawyer, but his role is to participate in the investigation to source out the facts and the truth.

I am not calling for no juries. I am saying a panel of professional jurors with knowledge of the law, forensics and any other technical or scientific evidence who can all cryptically and skeptically examine evidence would render better decisions than the average person off the street.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

Your “professional jurors” would essentially be lawyers. If there is a more corrupt group of people on this planet than lawyers, I’ve never heard of it. A lawyer will do or say anything to win a case. Having professional jurors is a really, really bad idea.

 

[Blues Man]

Your “professional jurors” would essentially be lawyers. If there is a more corrupt group of people on this planet than lawyers, I’ve never heard of it. A lawyer will do or say anything to win a case. Having professional jurors is a really, really bad idea.

Not necessarily.

Jurors get no points for wining or losing a case.

And what's so great about having people who can't understand technical expert testimony or who are too easily swayed by some lawyers suggestions.

A pool of professional jurors won't be easy to sway with emotion and would be better able to evaluate the actual evidence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not necessarily.

Jurors get no points for wining or losing a case.

And what's so great about having people who can't understand technical expert testimony or who are too easily swayed by some lawyers suggestions.

A pool of professional jurors won't be easy to sway with emotion and would be better able to evaluate the actual evidence.

It won’t work, the jurors will be paid by the government that has a vested interest in convicting defendants. Jurors who don’t convict won’t be called back. The jury will be simply an arm of the prosecution. Plus to make your system legal you’d have to amend the constitution. It calls for a jury of your peers, not a jury of professionals.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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.

And one because he was a backwards liberal anti American fool.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ok. But the problem you run into is the cases you would object to.

In your scenario people with a science background would be eligible to be jurors. Ok. California sues saying that pollution from autos and burning fossil fuels is poisoning the air and water.

The Jury is made up of your professional science based jurors. And they all know Global Warming is real. So the Judge orders the United States to stop burning fossil fuels.