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.
Here's an interesting article that I came across the other day...
Casey Anthony and the “CSI Effect”
While I have little doubt that the Casey Anthony jurors will break their silence soon enough, I do wonder how much the not guilty verdicts were due to the well-known (to lawyers anyway) “CSI effect.” Put simply, the CSI effect is short-hand for the enhanced expectations jurors have for forensic evidence — and corresponding disregard for circumstantial evidence — as a result of watching crime and punishment shows on television. And the Anthony trial was notable for its strong circumstantial evidence and serious lack of conclusive forensics. Casey Anthony and the “CSI Effect” - By David French - The Corner - National Review Online
A better and simpler reform would be to disallow or restrict further the practice of counsel striking jurors who they think might not be sympathetic to their arguments.
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.
Really? I was on a jury once. 4 days of testimony and 30 minutes to render not guilty including eating lunch. Kind of hard to argue about it when 12 people can walk into a room and all have the same conclusion. FYI of the 14 picked all were of reasonable intelligence excepy one who never showed up the second day anyway.......
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...
Of course not. However, you would probably want someone with half a brain evaluating the facts if you were a defendant. Currently, those who have nothing better to do for a few weeks sit in juries. These citizens, of course, will tend to be those of lower incomes and lower intelligence.
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.
I am talking about jurors with a higher level (college) education. They can randomly be assigned to cases. Not picked for the purpose of manipulating justice. In fact, the cases they actually take can remain classified so that they cannot be approached for bribery. If any juror does not keep this information confidential, they are fired and charged in the same way a health professional is if they disclose confidential facts about patients.
The real alternative we should be looking at is a panel of judges (3 or 5) who specialize in hearing and weighing evidence. I'd be for it provided that they are not politically influenced. They should carry either long-term appointments or life appointments.
Of course a switch to that sort of system could be more expensive. It might also slow down the trial process considerably.
Of course not. However, you would probably want someone with half a brain evaluating the facts if you were a defendant. Currently, those who have nothing better to do for a few weeks sit in juries. These citizens, of course, will tend to be those of lower incomes and lower intelligence.
Not necessarily true. Many courts rely on retired persons for jury duty
The real alternative we should be looking at is a panel of judges (3 or 5) who specialize in hearing and weighing evidence. I'd be for it provided that they are not politically influenced. They should carry either long-term appointments or life appointments.
Of course a switch to that sort of system could be more expensive. It might also slow down the trial process considerably.
That would be the system they have in some European countries.
Really? I was on a jury once. 4 days of testimony and 30 minutes to render not guilty including eating lunch. Kind of hard to argue about it when 12 people can walk into a room and all have the same conclusion. FYI of the 14 picked all were of reasonable intelligence excepy one who never showed up the second day anyway.......
So you determined all of the other jurors were of "reasonable intelligence" after deliberating with them for 30 minutes over lunch. Your account is a perfect example of why jurors should become a profession with a tailored education.
There may be some trials with an obvious smoking gun. However, the more complicated cases pose of different challenge; the need for a juror to critically evaluate the multitude of complex testimony and evidence. When jurors are lazy or unable to do this, they often just say, "lets be safe and say not guilty and lets all go home."
Based on the surprising comments that have come from some of the jury on the Casey Anthony trial I think the justice system definitely has to move in that direction. It seems clear that this jury didn't grasp the fact that Casey Anthony could be convicted of a lesser charge that did not involve the death penalty.
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.
