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.
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.
That is an interesting argument... I have a problem with "paying" someone to render a judgement because there will be a lot of special interests involved... corruption would even make the picture worse... so I guess, no....
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.
Most educated and self employed people find ways to get out of jury duty. Thus the "jury of our peers" does not exist.
That is an interesting argument... I have a problem with "paying" someone to render a judgement because there will be a lot of special interests involved... corruption would even make the picture worse... so I guess, no....
This could be said or done for the jurors of our system now. If one has invested work into an education and being a juror is a source of livelihood, they would be less apt to blow their career for a bribe.
In addition, if the jury only read/heard the court transcripts they could much more easily remain anonymous to involved parties.
Most educated and self employed people find ways to get out of jury duty. Thus the "jury of our peers" does not exist.
Very true. I know a few high level professionals who simply cannot leave their work for a few weeks. Therefore, they do everything that is possible to get out of jury duty. Often, those who are left are (not the brightest bulb in the room).
This could be said or done for the jurors of our system now. If one has invested work into an education and being a juror is a source of livelihood, they would be less apt to blow their career for a bribe.
In addition, if the jury only read/heard the court transcripts they could much more easily remain anonymous to involved parties.
You ever heard of politicians? Yeah... no thanks... you only need one for a mistrial... and a juror can come up with just about ANY reason to do what they do... no thanks...
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?
These same professionals have made a mockery of our justice system, they are bought and paid for on a daily basis to support whatever argument the lawyer wants and you want to make them the sole jurors?
You're going to have a relatively small pool of jurors most likely consisting of those that couldn't make it in the real world. Whats to prevent lawyer for picking those that conform to his case? You'd have massive amount of dead locked juries.
Thanks but no thanks, our current system isn't perfect but its better than what you are proposing.
Most educated and self employed people find ways to get out of jury duty. Thus the "jury of our peers" does not exist.
Exactly. My 'peers' would have at least 12 years of post-high school education, speak five languages, have visited a third of the countries in the world...
Not. Bloody. Likely...
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.
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.
