The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It's Routine

[AngusThermopyle]

What bias?

The question the jury decides is:
Did the defendant break law X.

The judge removes prospective juror Y who says:
I refuse to convict anyone for breaking law X, even if is proven that he broke law X.

If the judge allows prospective juror Y to sit, what is the outcome?

What if a judge allowed a juror to sit who had said:
I will vote to convict, no matter what the evidence is.

Also, as one jurist noted:

"The irony is that, as a practical matter, a jury has the power to nullify an anti-nullification instruction."

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]


The question the jury decides is:
Did the defendant break law X.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the point; that is not all that the purpose of a trial by jury is supposed to achieve.

Wuld YOU be willing to vote to convict a runaway slave if slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law were still in force?

Would you?

That is why the jury must take into account all aspects of the case and of fairness; not merely the narrow interpretation of some law. The defendant, and the law and the prosecution's conduct and the merits of the law and any extenuating or special circumstances of the defendant or case are ALL part of the quest for fairness and justice. The jury's duty is to do the fair thing, not to merely act as judge-instructed cogs in the wheels of the legal system.

There are soooo many cases where prosecutors or police withhold evidence; or where the law is CLEARLY being applied unfairly or inappropriately. Prosecutors may offer people plea bargains and even the innocent may accept them out of fear of a bad verdict and the enormous, sometimes life-ruining, consequences.

Take a read through the following column, which describes two grave misapplications of justice. Hard to believe that we still think of America as the Land of the Free.

America, land of the free...ha, ha, ha!

[andyfox]

We know that the goal of the prosecutor should be to seek justice, but that, in reality, the vast majority of time the goal is to win. I've proposed taking things one step further than you: I don't think the lawyers should have any say in deciding who goes onto juries. Because if they're not looking for justice, they're not looking for jurors who will decide the case on its merits, but rather who would be prone to consider their case more favorably than the opposition's case. I'd rather the judge (or perhaps two judges who are not officiating in the case) appoint the jury from the jury pool.

[andyfox]

Yes, while I think I need to consider this more fully, your arguments have shown me the value of jury nullification.

As to your question about the ardent slavery defender in a case where he believed the accused was not guilty, it's impossible for us to put ourselves in his shoes, but I can see him voting guilty to discourage runaways.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
We know that the goal of the prosecutor should be to seek justice, but that, in reality, the vast majority of time the goal is to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

= needs to be fired pronto (for subverting the justice system)

& if repeated offenses = needs to be disbarred pronto (for subverting the justice system)

[ QUOTE ]
I've proposed taking things one step further than you: I don't think the lawyers should have any say in deciding who goes onto juries. Because if they're not looking for justice, they're not looking for jurors who will decide the case on its merits, but rather who would be prone to consider their case more favorably than the opposition's case. I'd rather the judge (or perhaps two judges who are not officiating in the case) appoint the jury from the jury pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, interesting. I can see pluses and minuses to that approach. Regardless of those pros and cons, I'd still be leery (as I am now) of judges disqualifying prospective jurors because the prospective jurors realized their power and responsibility as jurors.

[CORed]

It takes 12 jurors to get an acquittal or conviction. It only takes one juror to get a hung jury, which results in a mistrial, or, in layman's terms a "do-over".

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
We know that the goal of the prosecutor should be to seek justice, but that, in reality, the vast majority of time the goal is to win. I've proposed taking things one step further than you: I don't think the lawyers should have any say in deciding who goes onto juries. Because if they're not looking for justice, they're not looking for jurors who will decide the case on its merits, but rather who would be prone to consider their case more favorably than the opposition's case. I'd rather the judge (or perhaps two judges who are not officiating in the case) appoint the jury from the jury pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea behind the adversarial system is similar to the argument for free markets - that competition will produce a better result.

There's an additional benefit in the case of jury selection - that since each side has a say in the composition of the jury, there'll be fewer complaints that the jury was selected unfairly. When someone else selects the jury for you, you're more likely to complain.