Juries

[quoth_the_raven]

I won't launch into a whole spew about the jury system just yet.

But I'll start by asking- do you schmoes feel that a jury is a valid method by which guilt and innocence should be deteremined in criminal cases (or civil cases, in jurisdictions where thats standard practice...its not over here)?

Once its got going, I promise to wade in ;)

[Grebdron]

As imperfect as the system is, I don't think there's anything better right now.

My main problem is that they seem to always find the lowest common denominator. Nobody who reads the paper or watches the news is allowed to sit on a jury. So you get the un/underemployed and un/undereducated deciding peoples' fates.

Scary thinking there.

[PapaJupe2k]

I've been called for jury duty twice in the last year and a half, but haven't had to serve either time. In response to your question, that is going to take some thought (hamster wheel starts to spin in brain). I guess no system is perfect, you hear of cases of jury tampering all the time, particualry involving the mafia. Another problem I guess is juror apathy, not really giving a shit and wanting to get out of there and back to your job. The pay is $10 a day here in my state. lol.

Judges on the other hand are certainly not above reproach either by any means. Just because you are in a position of authority doesn't mean you cant be crooked either. That goes for lawyers, medical experts, policemen, and anyone else that may be considered a so called "expert" that may testify at a trial.

So to sum up I have answered none of your questions and wasted a couple minutes of the schmoes lives that they wont get back.:D

Somebody else have at this one.

[PapaJupe2k]

Originally posted by Grebdron
So you get the un/underemployed and un/undereducated deciding peoples' fates.

Scary thinking there.

Yep that's me alright, like I said I've been summoned twice in the last year and a half. LOL.

I've never actually have been questioned on jury selection though as I've never had to report to trial.

"A jury of your peers"

But maybe that is how it should be as the undereducated and unemployed are more likely to commit crimes.:)

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by PapaJupe2k


But maybe that is how it should be as the undereducated and unemployed are more likely to commit crimes.:)


That is a bit of a grand statement- it depends on the crime. You don't get many uneducated or unemployed people taking part in complex frauds, or international money laundering, or causing bank collapses etc etc. The less complicated crimes, theft, assaults etc etc. are also difficult to attribute to one section of society in the way you suggest.

I'll bog off anyway.

[PapaJupe2k]

Yeah I know that. I was just making a joke as it applied to Grebdron's statements regarding who they put on juries. No offense was intended.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by PapaJupe2k
No offense was intended.

None was taken :)

[BubbaStrangelove]

Jurys are a great idea. The problem with the jury system right now is The Media, and the fact that people misuse way too much information.

It is impossible to have an impartial jury, because to many people are fed too much information on a minute-by-minute basis.

Add to this lawyers who use jurors like goddamned Pokemon cards. (Okay, you can have the obviously racist juror, but I get two black, and a woman to balance it out. Okay, Mr. Prosecutor?)

The system is solid. It's the corrupt fucks who manipulate it that's the problem.

[PapaJupe2k]

Well said Bubba. I agree.

Quoth you missed the subtle humor of that joke I made in your rage. Reread this.

Originally posted by PapaJupe2k
Judges on the other hand are certainly not above reproach either by any means. Just because you are in a position of authority doesn't mean you cant be crooked either. That goes for lawyers, medical experts, policemen, and anyone else that may be considered a so called "expert" that may testify at a trial.

Oh I'm so clever. I'll be here all week folks.:D

[BakeTheMooCow]

If I were ever called for jury duty, I'd employ Larry David's tactic to get out of it: "Uh... well, your honor, I believe it would be hard to remain impartial seeing as the defendant is a negro"

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
If I were ever called for jury duty, I'd employ Larry David's tactic to get out of it: "Uh... well, your honor, I believe it would be hard to remain impartial seeing as the defendant is a negro"

Which is why our jury system sucks donkey balls. Nobody is willing to serve.

[quoth_the_raven]

PapaJupe2k- I wasn't raging.

Bake- One thats been tried over here is to just raise your hand and tell the judge "Well to be honest, your honour, I dont think I'm smart enough to follow this properly" ;). worked as well, they've excused people for that very reason. Just don't try it while clutching a hefty volume on brain surgery, ok?;)

Which leads on to my main criticism of the jury system. Can you imagine several days of evidence, technical legal argument and intense boredom? Its hard to follow- and that is more of a flaw when linked with the inherent possibility of bias. If you haven't really understood whats happened, if you've been asleep for 3 days, it must be really tempting to fall back on your prejudices. I'm not saying that always happens, but I'm sure it does exist.


The jury selection process is more random over here- we don't have the, erm, Pokemon card effect.

Best way to beat bias- A jury computer :) I've talked this over with a mate who is a fine computer scientist and he believes this is a perfectly possible solution.

[Scarface98.9]

The jury system isn't perfect, but it's about as good a system as my baked brain can come up with. But like others have said, the main problem with it is the exclusion of anyone who watches the news. Bias' could form, but for some, it may be the only way to understand what's actually going on

[flowrchild]

Yea, I agree. It's not a perfect system but I can't think of anything that would be better. It seems drastically more fair than other options.

I think the biggest flaw of the jury system is that people often make decisions based on what they *think* happened, and not based on evidence. You're not supposed to convict a killer because a brutal crime was committed and there's no other suspects and you think they probably did it. I sure wouldn't want my fate determined by people of this mentality.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Yeah, no kidding Quoth. I had jury duty, and it was on this lady with that sydrome where she always takes the kid to the hospital for no reason -- anyway, when they were asking if anyone knew about this -- there was this one dude who went into a friggin tirade about how wrong it was, and how it was such a waste - on and on. I was amused, but then it was messed up, because this guy didn't get eliminated from the first selection. They were realy considering this guy, and it seemed to me that there was no way he could be impartial -- Then I realized that the lawyers are the ones who pick the jury. They do the selection. I think that's a stupid idea. Like letting swimsuit models pick who will judge them in a contest.

I roll my eyes whenever people say they are going to do outlandish things to not get picked, because I don't think it works that way, and if you were to really do it, it would just make you amusing to other potential jurors at the most.

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah, no kidding Quoth. I had jury duty, and it was on this lady with that sydrome where she always takes the kid to the hospital for no reason -- anyway, when they were asking if anyone knew about this -- there was this one dude who went into a friggin tirade about how wrong it was, and how it was such a waste - on and on. I was amused, but then it was messed up, because this guy didn't get eliminated from the first selection. They were realy considering this guy, and it seemed to me that there was no way he could be impartial -- Then I realized that the lawyers are the ones who pick the jury. They do the selection. I think that's a stupid idea. Like letting swimsuit models pick who will judge them in a contest.

I roll my eyes whenever people say they are going to do outlandish things to not get picked, because I don't think it works that way, and if you were to really do it, it would just make you amusing to other potential jurors at the most.

I'm curious to know how this jury selection principle ended up as part of your law to be honest. It seems a mite...well, as you said, stupid...

oddly, even though I think the jury process is flawed, I'd still love to serve. Not going to be happening, in light of my impending graduation... I'll just pray they relax the law a little and little lawyers serve...there was talk of it, but who knows what happened to that...

[BubbaStrangelove]

The thing is that I don't know if it is law, or if it is just practice, or sort of an exploitation of the laws. I haven't been able to find information on the net, but I'm not sure if I'm searching for the right stuff.