July 8, 2011
-
Professional Jury
Maybe it’s time for America to get a professional jury pool. Right now when there is a trial a jury has to be rounded up among the community. Their lives are disrupted and many try to get out of it. My suggestion is to seek out people from communities that want to be on a jury. Those people would go through extensive training and become certified to sit on a jury.
Thoughts? Should America go towards a professional jury?
Word of the Day: Adumbrate
The media adumbrated the justice system and caused a faulty verdict.
Psalms 25:1
Family: 318Family Feud Question: Places to Go on A First Date
Comments (25)
The jury system works every day in America in thousands of courtroom across the land.
Receiving a trial by a jury of our piers is far better than by a ruling elite.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Thanks -I’d like to think that a trained jury still be “a jury of our piers”.
I’ve been on jury pools many times and even though we would rather be somewhere else, most people take that responsability very seriously. I saw on TV the interview with some of the jurors in regards to this recent case thats made headlines. Most are pointing their fingers at them saying that they screwed up. The jururs will tell you, that deep down inside the feel she was guilty. But, their responsability was to go with the evidence and unforttunately, there was no cut and dry evidence that pointed to her. So, they had no other choice, than to declare her innocent of the charges.
@The_Eyes_Of_A_Painter - It does go back to INNOCENT until proven guilty.
I’ve heard this idea before, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, having a pool of jurors who were trained and understood the law would likely give better verdicts; e.g., Simpson would probably have been convicted of the murders. It would also eliminate the problem of jurors losing income and not being able to support themselves… I almost got called last year, for example, and as I live alone and have no other support besides my own salary, it could have been a real mess (the company I was working for at the time did not compensate for jury duty, as some do; had I ended up on a jury like the Simpson one, I could very well have ended up having to declare bankruptcy). On the other hand, it would also create a much smaller pool of jurors to choose from for a trial, which could make it more difficult to assure that you have relatively unbiased jurors during voir dire.
I guess the only way to find out for sure how well it would work compared to our current system would be to implement somewhere on a relatively long trial basis… maybe in one of the more populated states (California, New York, Texas), for, say, twenty years. Even then, though, analysis of the results would probably be controversial.
@TheSchizoidMan - Agreed. Yes, if implemented it should be tested first. I was on a jury pool once and it was in June. It’s the biggest part of my year with kid’s camps and such. I didn’t have to serve but it was a iffy time and I hated it.
I want a jury of my peers, not piers. See comments one and two. Guess we would be in deep water otherwise.
@vexations - Elite juries would be subject to political pressure, being bought off by interest groups and the same type corruption that affects politicians and judges.
Random selection eliminates the institutional corruption we find in all places run by the Democrat Party political machine.
I would hate to have my fate determined by my political views, religious affiliation instead of whether or not I actually committed the crime.
Also, who gets to choose the “professionals”?
How is this related to my comment?
… Professional Jury just means more lobbyists.
I think the Casey Anthony trial illustrates a strength of our justice system. At least in theory, when we are certain in our hearts that someone is guilty, but we can’t prove it, that person goes free. It is one of the basic concepts of the freedoms which we enjoy. It is often contraverted, but in the end, if some people who we think are guilty, don’t go free, then more innocent people will most certainly be punished. In this society, hopefully we prefer to make the error in favor of the innocent. Also, innocent verdicts for people who are probably guilty, encourage police and prosecutors to do their jobs correctly and not to overlook details or step on people’s rights.
I don’t think so. I think that having a professional jury would lead to the issues prevalent in other areas of the law- political motives, incentives, lobbyists. Also, I think the legal system would back up quite a bit unless you employed A TON of jurors.
It is a pain in the butt and disrupts work, but I think that’s a necessary payment for the right to a speedy trial by jury.
I’m not an American, but wouldn’t that simply not be a jury of his peers?
I think I agree with that. I think this jury who was sequested for over a month was waiting to get out, and didn’t go through all the evidence.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Interesting points. I would like to hope that Judges, Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers aren’t in the political realm.
@lightnindan - Good point. I love the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty.
@WaitingToShrug - Yes, it does disrupt life.
@Mal_P - They sure did bring back a verdict fast.
@Randy7777 - Rahm Emmanuel, mayor of Chicago was not allowed on the ballot because of he did not meet residence requirements. The Illinios Supreme Court voided the law and cleared the way for his candidacy.
Marriage between man and woman was upheld by California voters. A Gay judge voided the will of California voters.
Roe v Wade upheld the murder of unborn children under the guise of a “woman’s right to choose” which is totally bogus.
All liberal judges on the Supreme Court cast their votes in order to create new law, not follow the Constitution.
A circuit judge in Wisconsin put an illegal stay on a law duly passed by the legislature siting a completely phoney reason. The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the illegal ruling. If the Court had been liberal, the circuit judge would have gotten away with it.
The list goes on and on.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Oh, and how about Charles Rangel, Democrat who only got a slap on the wrist for all his corruption. Yet Republican Tom Delay got thrown in prison for his heavy handed fund raising tactics.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – very good point
I would love just a jury of my peers instead of the elite because it feels like they can be corrupted more. Though I do agree with a lot of people here. You can’t base innocence or guilt just by feeling, there has to be proof and evidence for that because it makes the judicial process unfair to everyone. Anyone could denounce anyone and it could end up leading to anarchy. It gives us some sort of order, however flawed it may be.
No! Being in a jury it’s a civic duty and frankly why would we need a professional jury… why not just have the judge do the full ruling if that was the case. I would actually love to be in a jury myself,it hasn’t happened… most get dismissed. But, most people get called to jury when they least want it but the fact is that they’re all regular people leading regular lives at different demographics. Having a select group of people will only create a bigger problem in the end. People are whining right now for what happened in the case a few days ago but they also whine about being in a jury. I’m sure half of those people didn’t want to be there but they did their best with the facts given. Being a juror can’t be a job, people would then whine about the unfairness there. And even selecting a jury is not the easiest but I still prefer those peers who will probably be harder than nicer in my opinion than an elite set of 12 who take is as a job and just go to get paid rather than the little money and doing the best for the person so they can continue their regular lives.
I’d go for it! No more jury duty! whohoo!
i’m not sure if a specific group of people set to be jurors are capable of remaining objective during every case. eventually something will be too much for them.