What do you think of the US jury system?

SeaBreeze said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ive also been called but never chosen...here you have to call in every morning to see if you have to go in that day...this lasts about a week til you are dismissed.
 

CeeCee said:
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.
Click to expand...

All true. But lawyers, defendants and plaintiffs, and the judge hear all of those interviews and can preempt without citing reason. That's why the jury selection phase takes such a long time. Then out of sometimes over 100 people, they settle on a jury. It may not be a perfect system, but in my opinion it could be much worse!
 
Even with all of its flaws, the jury system makes sense to me. But I can tell you what my mind cannot wrap around - and that is why a defendant is not compelled to testify in their own behalf. Sure - if I was guilty, I'd sit there with my mouth shut. But if I were innocent, they couldn't shut me up. And for that reason (among others) I wouldn't make a good juror.
 

Because then the prosecutor will be able to question you and he will look for any chance to tear you or your story apart.

And if you've not led a perfect life it will come out.
 
Trouble is you two, you are both law-abiding, and truth-tellers. Many defendants aren't; somebody has to try and separate truth from lies.
and, I knows, victims can lie too....so where can the truth be found? And how?
 
jrfromafar said:
Even with all of its flaws, the jury system makes sense to me. But I can tell you what my mind cannot wrap around - and that is why a defendant is not compelled to testify in their own behalf. Sure - if I was guilty, I'd sit there with my mouth shut. But if I were innocent, they couldn't shut me up. And for that reason (among others) I wouldn't make a good juror.
Click to expand...

To me that is good thing. One does not have to they are inocent. The accuser has to prove their guilt.
 
At the core of my problem with the jury system is that those 12 people sitting in the box are NOT my peers.

They are people that think going to Wal-Mart for a few hours on a Saturday constitutes "family time"; they do not have my physical ability nor my mental prowess; they do not KNOW me nor my motivations, dreams, desires, hopes, needs or goals; they probably enjoy watching prime-time sit-coms and think that those are the epitome of entertainment and wit, and I guarantee you that at least one of them is the kind of person who will pick their nose in public, inspect it, then pop it in their mouth.

Peers? Hardly.
 
Yes, I've heard those reasons before, but if the defendant cannot speak up in their own defense, there's an elephant in the room I can't ignore. Sid, what if you're the defendant, and things are not looking good for you, and all around you are lies that are framing you? In my mind, if the defendant does't get up and straighten the story out, I'm prone to believe he/she's guilty! Well this is another subject anyway - sorry for the tangent :)
 
Phil, I realise you you have just discounted 99% of the US population, but there must be somebody out there......

Jrfromafar, no more than usual...
 
SifuPhil said:
At the core of my problem with the jury system is that those 12 people sitting in the box are NOT my peers.

They are people that think going to Wal-Mart for a few hours on a Saturday constitutes "family time"; they do not have my physical ability nor my mental prowess; they do not KNOW me nor my motivations, dreams, desires, hopes, needs or goals; they probably enjoy watching prime-time sit-coms and think that those are the epitome of entertainment and wit, and I guarantee you that at least one of them is the kind of person who will pick their nose in public, inspect it, then pop it in their mouth.

Peers? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Those are my fears too, I just didn't know how to put it as nicely as you did, lol
 
ga5u3ema.jpg


Guilty!
 
jrfromafar said:
Yes, I've heard those reasons before, but if the defendant cannot speak up in their own defense, there's an elephant in the room I can't ignore. Sid, what if you're the defendant, and things are not looking good for you, and all around you are lies that are framing you? In my mind, if the defendant does't get up and straighten the story out, I'm prone to believe he/she's guilty! Well this is another subject anyway - sorry for the tangent :)
Click to expand...

Trouble is you can't just get up there and tell your story...you have to answer the questions asked and a good prosecutor will ask questions Ina way that you won't look good!

Most attorneys are drooling for a defendant to get on the stand.
 
SifuPhil said:
At the core of my problem with the jury system is that those 12 people sitting in the box are NOT my peers.

They are people that think going to Wal-Mart for a few hours on a Saturday constitutes "family time"; they do not have my physical ability nor my mental prowess; they do not KNOW me nor my motivations, dreams, desires, hopes, needs or goals; they probably enjoy watching prime-time sit-coms and think that those are the epitome of entertainment and wit, and I guarantee you that at least one of them is the kind of person who will pick their nose in public, inspect it, then pop it in their mouth.

Peers? Hardly.
Click to expand...

All true! But can you think of a way to make it more equal? You have a certain level of sophistication and dignity - so you want to be judged from a pool of people with equal sophistication and dignity. What about the homeless man accused of something he is innocent of - does he have to be judged by a jury of nose pickers ??? Maybe there is some merit to matching peer groups. Perhaps class distinction is a good thing?
 
Vivjen said:
Phil, I realise you you have just discounted 99% of the US population, but there must be somebody out there......
Click to expand...

Of that 1% left - based upon the current US population that's a little over 3 million - if we assume that they are equally divided up among states, that leaves 60,000 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ...

Of those 60,000, since there are 67 counties in Pennsylvania that would leave 895 in my county available for duty ...

From that 895 we can subtract the 97.9% that do not have an IQ equal to mine, leaving 18 in the jury pool ...

Of those 18, it is unlikely that any more than 1 of them will hold an Alpha 7 / 2% rating on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ...

And finally, I doubt that that last one will hold a fourth dan in Taekwondo, third dan in Hapkido, second dan in judo, first dan in Aikido, senior instructor ranks in Hung Gar and Northern Long Fist Kung Fu or 44 years experience in Taijiquan.

... OR be the Hamster Land-Speed Record holder. :p
 
I don't disagree with any of that, though you could ask for your trial to be moved; but that means that you will have to judge yourself. Does that work for you?
 
jrfromafar said:
All true! But can you think of a way to make it more equal? You have a certain level of sophistication and dignity - so you want to be judged from a pool of people with equal sophistication and dignity. What about the homeless man accused of something he is innocent of - does he have to be judged by a jury of nose pickers ??? Maybe there is some merit to matching peer groups. Perhaps class distinction is a good thing?
Click to expand...

Jr, I haven't believed in class distinction since the concept was taught to me in grade school.

I don't see "classes" - I see a continuum upon which we start with the highly-evolved, physically and mentally-superior Human and descend gradually through various levels of ability and intelligence all the way down to Pond Scum and Politicians.

To place any group into a "class" would require setting arbitrary cut-off limits, and that limitation would be defined by people on one side or the other of that fence. Now, I never had the gall to tell my neighbor, over our shared property-line fence, what they should do with their yard, just as I never expected them to tell me.

Classes are against nature - they are an invention of Man, designed to control their fellow Man.
 
I still think that a jury that is not picked randomly for every trail could work...get 13 or 15 in case someone is sick people who are well versed in law and science and maybe a few other subjects...pay them..it could be a career choice in the future, make sure you have liberal and conservative and I don't see why that wouldn't work better than what we have.
 
jrfromafar said:
All true! But can you think of a way to make it more equal? You have a certain level of sophistication and dignity - so you want to be judged from a pool of people with equal sophistication and dignity. What about the homeless man accused of something he is innocent of - does he have to be judged by a jury of nose pickers ??? Maybe there is some merit to matching peer groups. Perhaps class distinction is a good thing?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to infer that all homeless people are nose pickers or without any dignity.

I also imagine, with this class distinction, someone in the high echelon is pitted against someone in a low echelons how do you choose a fair and impartial jury?
 
SifuPhil said:
Jr, I haven't believed in class distinction since the concept was taught to me in grade school.

I don't see "classes" - I see a continuum upon which we start with the highly-evolved, physically and mentally-superior Human and descend gradually through various levels of ability and intelligence all the way down to Pond Scum and Politicians.

To place any group into a "class" would require setting arbitrary cut-off limits, and that limitation would be defined by people on one side or the other of that fence. Now, I never had the gall to tell my neighbor, over our shared property-line fence, what they should do with their yard, just as I never expected them to tell me.

Classes are against nature - they are an invention of Man, designed to control their fellow Man.
Click to expand...

Ever more the complication of finding a matched group of peers to make up a jury !
 
Well then forget about the peers part...a professional jury, it's a job...you are trained in forensics, DNA, law, psychology and have to be as impartially as humanly possible.

Or how about feed the info into a computer and see what the verdict is....maybe that will be the way in the future.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top