Juries and Jurors

[Blues Man]

Sure, I'm going to get a medical degree and become a professional juror.

You don't need a medical degree , Idiot just a well rounded knowledge of the life sciences so you can actually understand the evidence presented.

 

[Blues Man]

How about the US Government where their inaction was causing irreparable harm?

Harm to who?

 

[Blues Man]

Yep and public defender's offices are usually far worse funded than the prosecutors they face every day in court. A jury of your peers is far more likely to relate to you than a judge or a group of professionals. The composition of a jury is usually the luck of the draw, or like in the OJ case the reality of the jury pool at that courthouse (nine Blacks, one Latino and two Whites).

Yeah blind luck where the lawyers get to cherry pick the people they think they can manipulate the easiest.

And it doesn't matter if a jury relates to a defendant. All that matters is the evidence. Emotion should play no part in a verdict.

 

[pknopp]

You don't need a medical degree , Idiot just a well rounded knowledge of the life sciences so you can actually understand the evidence presented.

You know this is not going to happen but yet you persist.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah blind luck where the lawyers get to cherry pick the people they think they can manipulate the easiest.

And it doesn't matter if a jury relates to a defendant. All that matters is the evidence. Emotion should play no part in a verdict.

I disagree. It absolutely can. That's why certain police officers are no longer permitted to give testimony. He has lied in the past and even though his testimony would lead one to convict simply based upon the evidence as presented, a persons thoughts outside of the black and white of the law would cause them to rule otherwise.

 

[Blues Man]

I disagree. It absolutely can. That's why certain police officers are no longer permitted to give testimony. He has lied in the past and even though his testimony would lead one to convict simply based upon the evidence as presented, a persons thoughts outside of the black and white of the law would cause them to rule otherwise.

A person knowledgeable about evidence knows that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable.

They would know the interrogation techniques used by cops and would recognize how the cops actually illicit false statements from a person.

In what world is a panel of people who have no knowledge of anything regarding the law or evidentiary science able to make a more valid judgement than people who are knowledgeable in all these things?

 

[DGS49]

Professional juries, appointed by judges in the Criminal Court system. Retired lawyers and other professionals.

Makes too much sense to be implemented.

 

[Blues Man]

Professional juries, appointed by judges in the Criminal Court system. Retired lawyers and other professionals.

Makes too much sense to be implemented.

I think the jurors should be randomly picked by using an algorithm that will match the jurors knowledge and specialties to the evidence that will be presented at trial.

 

[pknopp]

A person knowledgeable about evidence knows that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable.

They would know the interrogation techniques used by cops and would recognize how the cops actually illicit false statements from a person.

In what world is a panel of people who have no knowledge of anything regarding the law or evidentiary science able to make a more valid judgement than people who are knowledgeable in all these things?

So an expert would know to dismiss anything a police officer says? I can go with that.

 

[Blues Man]

So an expert would know to dismiss anything a police officer says? I can go with that.

Not to dismiss anything but to better evaluate it as to how it relates to the actual evidence and to consider how that information the police used was obtained.

You don't blindly dismiss or believe anything without thorough contemplation

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yeah blind luck where the lawyers get to cherry pick the people they think they can manipulate the easiest.

And it doesn't matter if a jury relates to a defendant. All that matters is the evidence. Emotion should play no part in a verdict.

Lawyers can only exclude a few people without cause.

 

[pknopp]

Lawyers can only exclude a few people without cause.

I was excused because I had a job.

 

[JoeB131]

I was excused because I had a job.

That's kind of the point. Anyone with a job can get excused, so what you have are juries made up of jobless losers.

So who would you rather have hearing your case.

12 jobless losers with no education

or

12 professional jurors with expertise in law, forensics or the subject matter the case is about?

 

[pknopp]

That's kind of the point. Anyone with a job can get excused, so what you have are juries made up of jobless losers.

So who would you rather have hearing your case.

12 jobless losers with no education

or

12 professional jurors with expertise in law, forensics or the subject matter the case is about?

It's NOT going to happen.

 

[Blues Man]

Lawyers can only exclude a few people without cause.

And how many for cause?

 

[JoeB131]

It's NOT going to happen.

Why not? Seems to me that it's a pretty good idea.

Trial by Jury has become largely moot. Only 2% of criminal trials are heard by jury.

Most, they don't bother wasting anyone's time. The evidence is often slam dunk, and a plea is the best they can hope for.

 

[pknopp]

Why not? Seems to me that it's a pretty good idea.

Trial by Jury has become largely moot. Only 2% of criminal trials are heard by jury.

Most, they don't bother wasting anyone's time. The evidence is often slam dunk, and a plea is the best they can hope for.

I've explained why not.

 

[JoeB131]

I've explained why not.

Yes, you have... just not very good answers.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I was excused because I had a job.

You weren’t excluded, you requested an excuse. One that I feel shouldn’t have been granted.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's kind of the point. Anyone with a job can get excused, so what you have are juries made up of jobless losers.

So who would you rather have hearing your case.

12 jobless losers with no education

or

12 professional jurors with expertise in law, forensics or the subject matter the case is about?

No you can’t usually not be excused because you have a job. Only if it would create hardship. I never even tried to get excused from jury duty. It called a civic duty. Losing one or two days pay won’t put anyone in the poorhouse.