Should the standard for a jury member to vote to convict be based on his profession?

[GuyOnInternet]

Let's say you get selected for jury duty. Should the standard for voting to convict in good consience be based on your education and/or profession? For example, if an astronomer is on a jury, he cannot in good consience vote to convict unless he is at least as confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that the earth orbits the sun. If he is a mathematician, he should be as confident as he is that the pythogorean theorem is correct. If he is uneducated, he should be at least as confident as he is that if he drops a rock it will fall to the ground.

 

[jotathought]

Let's say you get selected for jury duty. Should the standard for voting to convict in good consience be based on your education and/or profession? For example, if an astronomer is on a jury, he cannot in good consience vote to convict unless he is at least as confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that the earth orbits the sun. If he is a mathematician, he should be as confident as he is that the pythogorean theorem is correct. If he is uneducated, he should be at least as confident as he is that if he drops a rock it will fall to the ground.

Don't agree that profession would be criteria for a jurist. As an example, this would disqualify individuals who are unemployed, low-skill or new to the workforce. Criteria should include a neutral position (non-biased) on the defendant and /or the proposed crime. Subject matter expertise and critical thinking would play well if it aligned with the witness testimony, case details and proposed charges.

 

[Hossfly]

Let's say you get selected for jury duty. Should the standard for voting to convict in good consience be based on your education and/or profession? For example, if an astronomer is on a jury, he cannot in good consience vote to convict unless he is at least as confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that the earth orbits the sun. If he is a mathematician, he should be as confident as he is that the pythogorean theorem is correct. If he is uneducated, he should be at least as confident as he is that if he drops a rock it will fall to the ground.

This is all that is required.

Juror Qualifications

To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must: be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form; have no disqualifying mental...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[MaryL]

I've been a juror many times. Made me question what a jury of your peers even means when we need an Spanish interpreter for an illegal alien that beat his wife's molester. Because he said so. That is ACTUALY the last case I was on. But the judge bought us donuts.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

Don't agree that profession would be criteria for a jurist. As an example, this would disqualify individuals who are unemployed, low-skill or new to the workforce. Criteria should include a neutral position (non-biased) on the defendant and /or the proposed crime. Subject matter expertise and critical thinking would play well if it aligned with the witness testimony, case details and proposed charges.

An uneducated person can still be on the jury. It changes what he deems as a standard of proof. For example, an uneducated person can set a standard that he must be at least confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that if he drops a rock, it will fall to the ground.

 

[MaryL]

An uneducated person can still be on the jury. It changes what he deems as a standard of proof. For example, an uneducated person can set a standard that he must be at least confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that if he drops a rock, it will fall to the ground.

Have you been on a jury?

 

[jotathought]

An uneducated person can still be on the jury. It changes what he deems as a standard of proof. For example, an uneducated person can set a standard that he must be at least confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that if he drops a rock, it will fall to the ground.

hmmm .. not fully aligned. Would an uneducated individual, well-versed in firearms, have a lackluster standard in the Alec Baldwin case? Would a well-educated individual, illiterate with firearms, set a different standard?

 

[progressive hunter]

Let's say you get selected for jury duty. Should the standard for voting to convict in good consience be based on your education and/or profession? For example, if an astronomer is on a jury, he cannot in good consience vote to convict unless he is at least as confident that the defendant comitted the crime as he is that the earth orbits the sun. If he is a mathematician, he should be as confident as he is that the pythogorean theorem is correct. If he is uneducated, he should be at least as confident as he is that if he drops a rock it will fall to the ground.

that just sounds really stupid,,,

 

[Hossfly]

Note: Joe Biden would never be selected for jury duty.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

hmmm .. not fully aligned. Would an uneducated individual, well-versed in firearms, have a lackluster standard in the Alec Baldwin case? Would a well-educated individual, illiterate with firearms, set a different standard?

The defense lawyer(s) would be required to excuse someone like that if they thought it would prejudice the case.

 

[jotathought]

The defense lawyer(s) would be required to excuse someone like that if they thought it would prejudice the case.

Why? A firearm expert, regardless of education level, would understand how a single-action revolver works -- critical to the case.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why? A firearm expert, regardless of education level, would understand how a single-action revolver works -- critical to the case.

Are you familiar with the term voir dire? A defense attorney discovering a potential juror could strike a potential juror who may prove prejudicial to their case. A prosecutor would likely have no problem, but if the defense strikes them, they have no choice but to exclude the juror.

 

[jotathought]

Are you familiar with the term voir dire? A defense attorney discovering a potential juror could strike a potential juror who may prove prejudicial to their case. A prosecutor would likely have no problem, but if the defense strikes them, they have no choice but to exclude the juror.

Voir dire is the preliminary exam of a jurist. Yes .. very familiar with the terminology and selection process. The defense won't disqualify a juror for being qualified ... they'll seek some other disqualifying criteria to remove them from the pool.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

hmmm .. not fully aligned. Would an uneducated individual, well-versed in firearms, have a lackluster standard in the Alec Baldwin case? Would a well-educated individual, illiterate with firearms, set a different standard?

I am only speaking of his level of confidence based on whatever understanding he has. The person would ask themselves how confident they are that if they drop a rock, it will fall to the ground and then ask themselves if they are that confident the defendant comitted the crime. That should be the standard for all criminal convictions in my opinion.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Because we come from all walks of life, my answer is no.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[whitehall]

The scenario is preposterous. There is no evidence that jurors rely on anything but evidence to make a determination of guilt.