Juries: Yes or No?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have professional judges, how about professional juries? Or at least voluntary jurors, people who wan to be there instead of forcing people who would rather be any plance but.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to have a professional jury. Anything to keep peoples' fates and our public protection out of the hands of GEDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private arbitration FTW.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Private arbitration FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since Nieliso didn't answer the question, maybe you will:

Which type of private arbitrator do you think would be more successful/get more business: a professional with lots of legal training or a panel of ordinary citizens.

All, its helpful to have an English -> AC dictionary available when using this forum. I suggest you buy one.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have professional judges, how about professional juries? Or at least voluntary jurors, people who wan to be there instead of forcing people who would rather be any plance but.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to have a professional jury. Anything to keep peoples' fates and our public protection out of the hands of GEDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I can see your point, I'm not so sure I fully agree with this. Many highly educated people seem to be lacking more in common sense than do their less educated counterparts (and more likely to subscribe to fringe political theories as well, which is generally indicative of a lack of real-world perspective).

One scenario I wouldn't like or think fair would be a panel of judges and lawyers themselves serving on the jury, none of whom believe in jury nullification and all of whom believe in mandatory minimums even if the law is clearly inappropriate to the particular case in question. I'm just leery of "elitist" justice. I'm leery of idiots too, whether they be idiots by virtue of low intelligence and inadequate education, or whether they are "intelligent" idiots who have good educations but who can't apply it to the real world and live in a dreamland of sorts. I think a grassroots jury is less advantageous in some regards but more advantageous in others. Same of course goes for a highly educated jury.

Either way, I can't shake off a deep-seated wariness of "elitist justice". The common people are the last defense against the possibility of the specter of eventual government tyranny. If lawyers, judges and politicians continue to gain more and more political power, that's where things just possibly could be headed, to eventual tyranny.

I also don't think the phrase "trial by a jury of one's peers" fits as well with the concept of a professional jury.

Let's not forget the lessons of history in other countries and times. How about all the politically motivated trials during Stalin or under Mao? Cadres and kangaroo trials and quick executions for political purposes. God save us from that and I mean it. At least without a "professional" jury in place, there is more of a bulwark against such things.

The idea of professional jurors opens the possibility of significant corruption. Some professional judges become corrupt so why wouldn't professional jurors also? The present system doesn't provide as much protection against a dumbed-down jury pool, but it does provide more protection against entrenched corrupt jurors.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Private arbitration FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since Nieliso didn't answer the question, maybe you will:

Which type of private arbitrator do you think would be more successful/get more business: a professional with lots of legal training or a panel of ordinary citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was not an attempt to answer the OP, so it's pointless to criticize it for failing to do so.

Personally, I don't really care. Just like I don't care if Coke gets more business than Pepsi. I just don't think one should be excluded.

[Poofler]

Sorry for replying line by line here, it's a little too long to give a similar response, but I'll try to stay on topic.

[ QUOTE ]
While I can see your point, I'm not so sure I fully agree with this. Many highly educated people seem to be lacking more in common sense than do their less educated counterparts (and more likely to subscribe to fringe political theories as well, which is generally indicative of a lack of real-world perspective).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't deny there are cons. Any binary choice tends to be a lesser of two evils situation if you want to look at it that way. I think common sense can be the enemy of a fair trial. Honestly. It's that type of thinking that I think causes a lot of jurors to shut off mentally when things get techinical and drawn-out. They want a nice little CNN five minute clip to just give them the gist, and they'll use common sense to figure it out from there. Juries are also notoriously susceptible to the emotional pandering. The shadow jury findings I've seen during actual trials are frightening. I'd wager that if you compare 12 graduate degrees with 12 GEDs, you'll find the more highly educated are less likely to be persuaded by the senationalist lawyer tactics that so often obscure the substance of the argument.

[ QUOTE ]
One scenario I wouldn't like would be a panel of judges and lawyers themselves serving on the jury, none of whom believe in jury nullification and all of whom believe in mandatory minimums even if the law is clearly inappropriate to the case in question. I'm just leery of "elitist" justice. I'm leery of idiots too, whether they be idiots by virtue of low intelligence and inadequate education, or whether they are "intelligent" idiots who have good educations but who can't apply it to the real world and live in a dreamland of sorts. I think a grassroots jury is less advantageous in some regards but more advantageous in others. Same of course goes for a highly educated jury.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, each side has its argument. Mine, in an overly-simplistic nutshell, is that the idiocy of current juries is a greater offense, in practice, to the notion of justice than my idea of a professional panel of experts. Professionals probably are more likely to have an agenda. But in terms of fact finding, the cases I've seen juries screw up have been sophisticated cases requiring some knowledge of statistics, accounting, finance, etc. A panel of experts often couldn't legitimately find the same way without being wilfully dishonest, IMO. It's much easier to pull the smoke and mirrors game on people ignorant in the discipline.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, I can't shake off a deep-seated wariness of "elitist justice". The common people are the last defense against the possibility of the specter of eventual government tyranny. If lawyers, judges and politicians continue to gain more and more political power, that's where things just possibly could be headed, to eventual tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this point, and agree with it to a degree. But you're playing with *other* people's lives and livlihoods here. My greatest concern is for the victims and accused, and that the right verdict be given as much as possible. Jury nullification is more often written about than exercised. That's the only real power the common people yield. And, professionals could be granted that same power.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't think the phrase "trial by a jury of one's peers" fits as well with the concept of a professional jury. Let's not forget the lessons of history in other countries and times. How about all the politically motivated trials during Stalin's era? At least without a "professional" jury in place, there is more of a bulwark against such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I don't think that phrase fits will with it either. I'm not talking about whether it would be constitutional right now. This is all just my personal preferences talking. And as someone already pointed out, the juries are already manipulated pre-trial by judges and lawyers. I don't think a jury appointed by Stalin, or Bush, or any singular body would be a good method for finding impartial, educated jury.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of professional jurors opens the possibility of significant corruption. Some professional judges become corrupt so why wouldn't professional jurors also? The present system doesn't provide as much protection against a dumbed-down jury pool, but it does provide more protection against corrupt jurors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure the problem is that serious. You could still strike professional jurors for the same reasons you could strike current jurors. Deciding issues of fact, rather than law, is also a more objective task which would be harder to defend when 11 other people are berating your for your wilfull dishonesty. I guess I'm saying potential for effective corruption (IMO) is less grave than idiocy that invites sensationalist lawyers, dumbed down presentations of complex issues, and verdicts based too often on a barely superficial understanding of the merits of a case.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have professional judges, how about professional juries? Or at least voluntary jurors, people who wan to be there instead of forcing people who would rather be any plance but.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to have a professional jury. Anything to keep peoples' fates and our public protection out of the hands of GEDs.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would kind of defeat the purpose of having a jury trial. We might as well just have a panel of judges determine whether or not a suspect is guilty.
If the state cannot get a bunch of GEDs to convict someone, then they shouldn't be able to imprison that person.
And trial judges always have the authority to find a suspect "not guilty", if the judge thinks guilt hasn't been proven.

Of course a professional jury or panel of judges would be better at determining whether a suspect was guilty or innocent, but that's not what our system is designed to do. Our system is designed to determine whether a suspect was proven guilty or not. There's a huge difference.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
If the state cannot get a bunch of GEDs to convict someone, then they shouldn't be able to imprison that person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the crapiness of a lawyer, or the ignorance of juries influence the outcome? Why is this justice? Some GEDs won't buy this new fangled DNA evidence no matter how hard you try to explain it.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course a professional jury or panel of judges would be better at determining whether a suspect was guilty or innocent, but that's not what our system is designed to do. Our system is designed to determine whether a suspect was proven guilty or not. There's a huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Therein lies my beef.

[Nielsio]

Time for another post:


* You guys keep asking me what kind of arbitration system I want. Why would knowledge of arbitration possibly (and or my specific preference) be valuable in any way, shape or form? Like I said: it's a violent monopoly. Violent monopolies are actively keeping out competition. If you try to compete with them, they will kidnap you, jail you or kill you. Clearrrrly the people who kidnap, jail and murder competition are not interested serving the client or in objective law (ZOMFGLOL how could they possibly care about ethics morality and justice when they're shooting the competition).

* Suppose the state took over the food supply and they would let us vote on candidates to rule over the food supply. And the rulers would promise all kinds of fruits, vegetables, pastas, caviars, whatever. And at the end of the day they would decide on one food-menu that everyone unilaterally would have to eat. And what would it be? Ofcourse it would rice and beans, look at Cuba. Where you get foodstamp-type thingies to get exactly one type of unbranded (there's no choice, why put a label on it!?) toothpaste. And then people in bars and cafes would be telling you: "dude, dude, how do YOU think food should be prepared, what do YOU like? huh? huh? huh?".

Do you recognize the sick masochism?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the state cannot get a bunch of GEDs to convict someone, then they shouldn't be able to imprison that person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the crapiness of a lawyer, or the ignorance of juries influence the outcome? Why is this justice? Some GEDs won't buy this new fangled DNA evidence no matter how hard you try to explain it.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course a professional jury or panel of judges would be better at determining whether a suspect was guilty or innocent, but that's not what our system is designed to do. Our system is designed to determine whether a suspect was proven guilty or not. There's a huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Therein lies my beef.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, my post also assumes that the trial judge does what he's supposed to do. If the judge believes there is not enough evidence to justify a guilty verdict, the judge can and should find the defendant not guilty. The jury is used as a last defense, not the first one. This is the way our system is supposed to work.

A jury is required for a guilty verdict, but not for a not guilty verdict or a dismissal.

[Poofler]

Al, I know. That's all descriptive. I'm talking about how, normatively, I would set up a judicial system. If I infer some advocacy out of that, we know that in practice the jury is pretty powerful. A case with merit will advance. From there, the judge generally respects the verdict. If he felt that strongly about the merits, the case usually won't have gone to trial.