What do you think of the US jury system?

CeeCee

CeeCee

Well-known Member
Location
Monterey Peninsula California
I think it needs revamping especially after seeing the Casey Anthony fiasco and a few others.


Maybe they should have 12 professional jurors who know the law and the science and then at each trail maybe pick one lay person...or the numbers could be different....but this jury of your peers isn't right in my opinion.
 

Do you not think that some of the problem arises because of instant media reporting, and opinion?
in my view, the whole truth hardly ever comes out, so bias is going to appear regardless.
if you use lawyers etc. you might as well do without the jury altogether, and have a 3 person judge panel.
the people winning out all the time are the lawyers....I chose the wrong profession again!
 
The media has a lot to do with it, yes but I just don't think picking ordinary people is efficient.

for one, look at all the time wasted in big trails on educating the jury about the science.

I think I would be very afraid, even if innocent of being tried by a jury of my peers.

For one thing..professional people usually can't miss work for a longer trail...so who will you get?

I know when I have gotten a summons here in Fresno, I wasn't happy about it because downtown Fresno is a scary place and after driving down there, the parking lot is far and you have to wait for a shuttle to take you to the courthouse...so, I am already in a negative mood so that would affect my thinking....plus everyone has tneir prejudices...even if they say they dont.

Forget the lawyers...maybe just half the jury know the science, which long time ago wasnt so complicated as it is now with DNA etc.
 

If you are summoned for jury service here, you are bound by law to attend.
i was in an exempt profession , although they have changed the law recently.

If you have decent expert witnesses the science should be ok, but there again, they don't agree often, so who do you believe, even with a science degree?

I agree the system isn't perfect by any means... But it isn't easy to make it better..
 
With a science degree I think you have a better chance of deciding who is right.

May be they should not allow expert witnesses to be called anyway, they are always partial to the side that calls them.

BTW...head pharmacists make good money here!

My nephew was the head pharmacist in charge of three hospitals here, he does very well.

Also...it's usually the high profile lawyers making the big bucks.
 
I know....grass is always greener...

And, exactly; I am not sure that the truth ever comes out, on either side....no wonder nobody knows what to think.
 
I am reading a book about witches in the 17th century at the moment..
they would throw a possible witch into a pond; if she drowned she was innocent, if she floated she was guilty....
 
Find me a better jury system and Ill support it,every system of any kind has flaws.
One thing is for sure,the screening of anyone call to serve on a jury is totally out of whack.
The lawyers questioning of a person to serve on the jury should be limited to maybe 10 questions and within 2 hours.
Not 3-4 days...that's ridiculous.
 
It may be true that the jury system went awry in the Casey Anthony trial. But think about the vast amount of trials where the jury system works just fine. If anything, there are too many laws protecting the defendant and not enough for the victim of a crime. Citing the Casey Anthony trial, much of what the public heard was inadmissible evidence, a good deal of which was presented in the court without the jury present. So the public hears this inadmissible evidence, and we make judgments based upon what we heard but the jury didn't hear.

What is possible with a "professional" jury and not a jury of peers, is something that is prone to corruption of another sort. Personally, I wouldn't want my life to hang in the balance of a professional jury. Give me Joe or Jenny Lunchbucket.
 
My biggest objection about being a jurist is there is NO excuse to get out of participating...not even AGE !! (Here in L.A. anyway.);

If you don't show up you're in contempt of court and YOU GO TO JAIL !! They treat you worse than the defendant.

Once you're IN you're treated like cattle. Do THIS ! Do that ! Don't do that! Now, wait until we call you!

Ya get so mad you'd vote with the majority whether you believed it or not...just so you could get it over with and get home !

Oh, And you have to GET there even if you don't have a car, otherwise bus, taxi, skateboard or crawl! They don't give a shit !
 
Falcon said:
My biggest objection about being a jurist is there is NO excuse to get out of participating...not even AGE !! (Here in L.A. anyway.);

If you don't show up you're in contempt of court and YOU GO TO JAIL !! They treat you worse than the defendant.

Once you're IN you're treated like cattle. Do THIS ! Do that ! Don't do that! Now, wait until we call you!

Ya get so mad you'd vote with the majority whether you believed it or not...just so you could get it over with and get home !

Oh, And you have to GET there even if you don't have a car, otherwise bus, taxi, skateboard or crawl! They don't give a shit !
Click to expand...

That may all be so - but the whole system would collapse if they were not as stringent as they are. The courts don't want to hear the whine bag excuses, they just want people to do their democratic duty.
 
jrfromafar said:
That may all be so - but the whole system would collapse if they were not as stringent as they are. The courts don't want to hear the whine bag excuses, they just want people to do their democratic duty.
Click to expand...


But some are real excuses...so tell me..what kind of juror will you be if you are forced to do something you don't want to?
 
Vivjen said:
Being tossed into a pond was trial by the mob, a little like trial by the media now?
Click to expand...

Maybe a mob, but it was the law of the land. if I understand medieval law, it was called 'ordeal' by water, or fire, and if the accused survived it, they were pronounced innocent. In Germany, if the accused did not have someone wealthy to plead their cause, the accused would be forced to dip their arms in boiling water - if they were unharmed, they were innocent (duh) - makes one glad for the laws we have today. Not perfect, but a far cry from what they were.
 
CeeCee said:
But some are real excuses...so tell me..what kind of juror will you be if you are forced to do something you don't want to?
Click to expand...

I've been forced to answer to jury summons but always preempted. But sitting there, I've analyzed the situation and resolved that if I am chosen to be on the jury, I wouldn't take my frustration on the system out on the defendant.
 
But if you don't, the jury could be full of people who do want to do it......for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily good.
Democracy surely requires a small sacrifice to do it's best to produce the fairest trial possible...
 
Whenever you're dealing with people, you're taking a chance. I agree, even if I'm completely innocent, I'd be very nervous about being found guilty. A lot depends on how good of a lawyer you can afford too. Just as Casey Anthony, who should have gotten the death penalty from all I knew, was set free, there are lot of people in jail who are innocent, just didn't have the right representation. They use a lot of technicalities and loopholes to win their cases, which is legal to do obviously, but not always very fair. I've been called to jury duty several times over the years, but never chosen to serve on a trial, which is fine by me.
 
Sorry falcon...mixed you and jrfromafar up.

Also...look at all the after interviews of jurors, some of the things they say are scary...I don't believe in science is one I heard.

Then there are the ones that fall asleep during a trail or do it in hopes of cashing in on a book deal., I could go on and on.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top