U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2011, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,073 posts, read 83,735,637 times
Reputation: 41844

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
With the explosion of CSI forensics, science, law, understanding of psychology, and statistics of probability, is it time for jurors to be a profession of educated people in those areas? Perhaps the jury could only review the court transcripts, testimony, and evidence without seeing or knowing who the defendant is. This would eliminate any bias, prejudice, or verdicts based on emotion.
In addition, jurors would be better equipped to critically analyze the evidence and take their job seriously.



in the case of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony, the jury did not do its due diligence by taking the time to methodically go over the evidence and testimony as a group. Impossible to do in 4 or 10 hours respectively considering the amount of testimony and evidence.

The jury system is not working because the jurors often fail to put effort, time, or work into their job/role. In addition, many are simply not educated or intelligent enough to give the information necessary critical analysis.
I say absolutely no; if it becomes professional we will are more subject to coruption for starters. What needs to be done is convince the jurors this is not CSI or law and Order. This is the real thing and don't confuse the two.

NIta
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2011, 07:46 AM
 
820 posts, read 752,436 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
With the explosion of CSI forensics, science, law, understanding of psychology, and statistics of probability, is it time for jurors to be a profession of educated people in those areas? Perhaps the jury could only review the court transcripts, testimony, and evidence without seeing or knowing who the defendant is. This would eliminate any bias, prejudice, or verdicts based on emotion.
In addition, jurors would be better equipped to critically analyze the evidence and take their job seriously.



in the case of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony, the jury did not do its due diligence by taking the time to methodically go over the evidence and testimony as a group. Impossible to do in 4 or 10 hours respectively considering the amount of testimony and evidence.

The jury system is not working because the jurors often fail to put effort, time, or work into their job/role. In addition, many are simply not educated or intelligent enough to give the information necessary critical analysis.
Professional jury? You've got to be kidding.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,389 posts, read 19,652,082 times
Reputation: 7889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
It might not have been necessary to examine all of the testimony and evidence. They might have simply found the prosecution fail to prove a required element beyond a reasonable doubt and that it was not necessary to go any further. You cannot really know.
The jury cannot know unless they methodically review the testimony and evidence along side the criteria of each of the charges.

Very few trials have a "smoking gun" and when they do, the defendant almost always takes a plea deal. That is why it is so important to carefully go over everything because sometimes even the smallest fact, often overlooked, can be very meaningful.'

When this is not done, a jury has not done their due diligence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,056 posts, read 30,553,733 times
Reputation: 10490
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
With the explosion of CSI forensics, science, law, understanding of psychology, and statistics of probability, is it time for jurors to be a profession of educated people in those areas?
It doesn't sound like a bad idea...but how do you go about implementing it? What will happen when some group of people--excluded from consideration because of, let's say, insufficient education--hires an ambulance-chasing lawyer and initiates a class action lawsuit?

If you can't keep unqualified people out of any other job field, what makes you think a system of professional jurors would be any different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,389 posts, read 19,652,082 times
Reputation: 7889
Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedman View Post
Professional jury? You've got to be kidding.....
Not at all. We need a jury that has the intelligence to understand the significance of the evidence. Too many people are idiots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,389 posts, read 19,652,082 times
Reputation: 7889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
It doesn't sound like a bad idea...but how do you go about implementing it? What will happen when some group of people--excluded from consideration because of, let's say, insufficient education--hires an ambulance-chasing lawyer and initiates a class action lawsuit?

If you can't keep unqualified people out of any other job field, what makes you think a system of professional jurors would be any different?
First there should be a curriculum developed in colleges and universities. This curriculum should contain courses in law, forensics, science, psychology, and statistics of probability.

The jurors are accredited and are assigned cases randomly. Their case load must remain confidential just as a physician keeps patient info confidential. The jurors review a case by transcripts and audio. They are not present in the courtroom. This prevents bias of the defendants race or appearance as well as maintains anonymity of the jurors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Pacific NW
9,440 posts, read 5,827,223 times
Reputation: 7895
Considering how well our professional politicians are doing, no I don't think we need professional jurors too. Some public jobs or tasks are ment to be done as a temporary, part time service, not a full time job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 9,027,715 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
The jury cannot know unless they methodically review the testimony and evidence along side the criteria of each of the charges.

Very few trials have a "smoking gun" and when they do, the defendant almost always takes a plea deal. That is why it is so important to carefully go over everything because sometimes even the smallest fact, often overlooked, can be very meaningful.'

When this is not done, a jury has not done their due diligence.
Yes they can. It is up to the prosecution to prove all of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury found only one element for each acquittal that was not proved to the reasonable doubt standard they should acquit. Quite simply the jury could have found that the prosecution did not prove the first element they chose to examine of each crime and as a result there was no need to look further.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Midwest
31,389 posts, read 19,652,082 times
Reputation: 7889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Yes they can. It us up to the prosecution to prove all of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury found only one element for each acquittal that was not proved to the reasonable doubt standard they should acquit.
Nope. For example in Casey's trial:

Let me put it to you clearly.

One of the lesser charges against Casey was Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. This can be the death of a child from something as simple as neglect-such as neglecting to provide for safety or neglecting to properly supervise a child.

Casey was the last person with Caylee who was not even three years old. Caylee turns up dead and Casey does not give a truthful account of what happened. Even if an accident did happen, it would be negligent to not seek help immediately. If the child was dead too long for medical help than it is neglect by leaving a child unsupervised for an unreasonable period of time.

The circumstances speak for themselves. Casey's wrong doing can be inferred from the mere fact that the occurrence happened:" Res ipsa loquitor".
Casey Anthony verdict in - NOT guilty
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 01:40 PM
 
3,046 posts, read 2,742,933 times
Reputation: 1306
Quote:
in the case of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony, the jury did not do its due diligence by taking the time to methodically go over the evidence and testimony as a group. Impossible to do in 4 or 10 hours respectively considering the amount of testimony and evidence.
Just because your emotions make you feel bad about these trials, doesn't mean that they didn't mull over the evidence. That they took so little time, especially in the case of the latter, shows that the forensic evidence was very, very weak.

The people who founded the country didn't want trials by judges. They wanted trials by people. Likely to avoid the consequences of politics mingling directly with the freedom of those on trial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top