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.
This is a topic I've been thinking about and I'm interested what others think about it. I ask that people take a minute to objectively consider the issue instead of leaping to the determination that "of course it's good because the US has the best legal system in the world".
I definitely think the thought behind it is noble. "A jury of your peers" sounds like a good way to ensure that a defendant gets a just and fair trial. It also made a lot of sense at the time the constitution was written considering the British inspired class system that that permeated society at the time, where the regular person had few ways to assert his rights, if he had any. I wonder, though, if it really is a good system in reality to have lay people interpreting often complex laws and evaluating even more complex evidence.
From what I have seen and read way too often jurors make their determinations based on emotion, preconceived notions and sometimes blatant misunderstandings. I've seen interviews with jurors where they have dismissed testimony because they didn't like the witness or where their feelings for attorneys have effected their decisions. Of course everyone knows this and the court room has become theater as a result. But should what the defendant is wearing or who is sitting in the front row in the gallery really matter?
I've been following the Jodi Arias trial a bit and listened to reporters who had been in the court room give reports about what the jury was doing during certain testimony. According to them the jury appeared bored and uninterested during scientific testimony. As I understand it that's quite common and my interpretation of that is that that's because they don't understand the testimony.
Law is complicated which we have some of our brightest train for years to become lawyers. Science is also complicated and scientists, they too some of our brightest, also train for years to become experts in their respective fields. Still we expect lay people to evaluate their work and interpret the law and allow them to make life and death decisions based on their understanding of these things. Wouldn't professionals be better equipped to evaluate evidence and the law and less likely to make decisions based on feelings and unrelated issues?
What do you think? Is the layman jury system a good system? Why or why not?
No, it's a terrible system. Being tried by a jury of my peers is a horrifying thought, given the unbelievable lack of ratiocinative and critical thinking skills the average person has, how little they understand any of the major sciences, and the multitude of cognitive distortions and biases they are undoubtedly loaded down with.
Something I always thought would be nice is if there was such a thing as a "professional juror". People that have been specifically trained in how to think and reason without making logical fallacies, who have at least a working knowledge of the scientific method, and have received education on how to identify psychological biases and distortions, not only in themselves but in others as well.
Such a person would be drastically more equipped to handle something as important as being a juror (especially if it is something major, like a murder case) than the average Joe or Jane Doe.
Having served on a jury during a criminal trial, I determined at the conclusion of deliberations that I would never want to be tried by a jury of my peers. (Some people would say it's because I think I have no peers) There was a very self-important man who told the rest of us that he would be the jury foreman because "he had been a member of the military". When I brought up an apparent contradiction in a piece of the testimony, it was dismissed as "unimportant". A couple of the jurors had developed an intense dislike for the defense attorney as being "arrogant". (I thought he was excellent!)
I try not to break any laws because of what I experienced in that jury room.
This is a topic I've been thinking about and I'm interested what others think about it. I ask that people take a minute to objectively consider the issue instead of leaping to the determination that "of course it's good because the US has the best legal system in the world".
I definitely think the thought behind it is noble. "A jury of your peers" sounds like a good way to ensure that a defendant gets a just and fair trial. It also made a lot of sense at the time the constitution was written considering the British inspired class system that that permeated society at the time, where the regular person had few ways to assert his rights, if he had any. I wonder, though, if it really is a good system in reality to have lay people interpreting often complex laws and evaluating even more complex evidence.
From what I have seen and read way too often jurors make their determinations based on emotion, preconceived notions and sometimes blatant misunderstandings. I've seen interviews with jurors where they have dismissed testimony because they didn't like the witness or where their feelings for attorneys have effected their decisions. Of course everyone knows this and the court room has become theater as a result. But should what the defendant is wearing or who is sitting in the front row in the gallery really matter?
I've been following the Jodi Arias trial a bit and listened to reporters who had been in the court room give reports about what the jury was doing during certain testimony. According to them the jury appeared bored and uninterested during scientific testimony. As I understand it that's quite common and my interpretation of that is that that's because they don't understand the testimony.
Law is complicated which we have some of our brightest train for years to become lawyers. Science is also complicated and scientists, they too some of our brightest, also train for years to become experts in their respective fields. Still we expect lay people to evaluate their work and interpret the law and allow them to make life and death decisions based on their understanding of these things. Wouldn't professionals be better equipped to evaluate evidence and the law and less likely to make decisions based on feelings and unrelated issues?
What do you think? Is the layman jury system a good system? Why or why not?
I still believe in juries being of our peers. I believe the problem is more the legal system. It has changed alot since the birth of our nation.
In yesteryear trials were more simple and down to earth. Today, the juries cannot hear eveything they need to hear, the lawyers, the judge and the system is allowed to hide parts of the picture for the juries to see. Hidding a lot of stuff from them is not correct in my opinion.
The juries are form by a variety of men and women, adults. Juries are formed from people in the community. We as a group decide what we want in our community.
Those points about science and the law the system complicates them for the juries today. They should be able to ask whatever questions they want as in years past, not just the lawyers. The ones who decide is the jury so if any member has further questions about anything to understand, so be it.
Example:
DNA. Sure it can be complicated from the standpoint of science. However, how confusing is it to tell a juror that it is no different than a finger print? A juror can be told that our bodies have certain chemical fingerprints and once a blood sample is collected they can find whoser "fingerprint" it belongs to.
If a juror does not undertand some physics concept, it does not mean he can't ask why a forensic expert explain that an a body on the ground that just fell looks differently than if that individual fell from 5 floors above so he determines that the body was thrown form high above. How difficult is that to understand.
Lastly, what I think you espouse is not allowing people in the community to be involved in what is going on in THEIR community. Regardless of background and education, all pay taxes and are citizens of the community. I believe we are all entitled to know and decide what we want in our communities. Take care.
As a lawyer, I have tried any number of cases in front of juries over the years. There are a number of serious problems with the system. Here are a few, I've personally observed:
1. A large percentage of people summoned don't come. You can argue how representative of the community those that do come really are.
2. If a county has both an urban/rural composition what likely will occur is that those from rural areas will come and many from urban areas will fail to show up. This may tell us something about how different groups feel about their obligations of citizenship. Again, it results in some segments of the community being present in numbers greater or lesser than their normal proportions.
3. There is an amazing amount of apathy among jurors. Many simply do not care about the travails of others in the community. Some do care, but I would not call it a majority. The overwhelming compunction that exists is to avoid service or get it over as fast as possible, regardless of what happens to the parties in the case. I have always tried to avoid letting a jury begin deliberations on a Friday. If they do, chances are, they will rush through things too quickly just so everyone can get home early and begin the weekend.
4. To the extent that jurors do reflect a community, they reflect its bad parts as well as its good parts. The bad includes bigotry, sexism, homophobia and a xenophobia that often is directed towards foreigners or even those who have foreign sounding names. Perhaps, even worse, the values of the community may include a dislike for those with advanced college degrees or special expertise. Ignorance abounds in many places in the country and one should never make the make the mistake of thinking a jury can grasp any testimony about scientific or technological matters.
5. The juror nullification movement is a horrible idea. However, some jurors now literally believe they can ignore the court's instructions, ignore the evidence presented in the case, ignore the lawyer's arguments, and instead arrive at any conclusion they want too. This isn't the role of juries. The role of juries is a limited one and that role is too simply "find the facts" in a case.
6. As a rule, juries make the decision in criminal cases correctly most of the time because the issues are very simple. Is the defendant innocent or guilty? In civil cases, juries can be an utter disaster. The issues here are more complex and jury verdicts are highly inconsistent.
Because of the Constitution, we are pretty much stuck with jury trials. It doesn't mean its always a good thing or even a good thing most of the time. It does mean we have to live with it.
Last edited by markg91359; 05-10-2013 at 09:32 AM..
I fully agree with your post, MarkG, with the exception of #6. I've seen too many cases that seemed wrongfully acquitted/convicted based on the evidence that has been revealed to the public. Yes, I know we don't get all the info but much of what we do see/hear leads me to believe that juries decide with the gut and not the brain.
The case in which I was involved was in regard to the arrest of a man for "dealing drugs". He owned a bar and was enamored of a female state police officer, (she was undercover). The evidence presented to the jury? While seated at the bar, talking to said officer, another patron passed a brown paper bag to her and asked that it be given to someone further down the bar. PO handed the bag to defendant who handed it to the person next to him. Charge: Dealing (Because the person with the bag was arrested for possession as he left the bar and the bag was found to have marijuana in it. But it could very well have been a bologna sandwich for all anybody knew who handled the bag.
The second piece of evidence we got was from SPO, who stated that she was feeling kind of low and when she mentioned to defendant that she really needed to get a good night's sleep, he gave her a Quaalude. Gave, not sold. One pill. Now I ask you, who among us has not "borrowed" a pill or two from Aunt Jane, or Uncle Nort, for one condition or another? Should they be taken to court? Charge: Dealing
There were other issues for which the defense attorney took SPO to task on the stand. But of course, the jury decided that he was mean.
Upshot, despite my protestations, the "jury" found him guilty. (I did not), but the verdict was accepted. When I tried to speak to a court official, I was told not to feel too bad, because the verdict would be appealed and maybe he'd get off then!
While I don't doubt that at some point this man had some shady dealings, and I certainly don't want drug dealers in my community, I don't think the evidence presented made him guilty. He wasn't roaming the schoolyard in a trench coat. He passed a bag. He gave a woman one of his pills -at the time, a legal drug, BTW.
I agree this is anecdotal and doesn't reflect the experience of everyone who has ever served on a jury, but it's my experience and the reason I believe that the jury system is flawed. The Professional Juror suggestion sounds interesting but I'd like to hear more about the criteria to be considered before I endorsed it fully.
Moderator cut: Orphaned
No, it's inherently too subjective. People are, well...people. Their own biases are too easily triggered. Besides, anyone with half a brain avoids jury duty like the plague for the very real fear that they might actually be picked! No one wants that much inconvenience, justice, or social interest. They just don't.
Turn it to a professional organization who knows and understands a modicum of the law. That way gross procedural errors or prosecutorial misconduct or defense attorney slime will be held to a minimum.
I would rather be tried by 12 professionally trained jurors than 12 of my "peers". The fact that the current legal system spends enormous amount of energy, monies and time on "stacking" the jury for favorable outcomes tells you it's a broken system from the get go.
No one should be able to "stack" a jury either way. By having a professional group do it, the accused, I believe, will stand a much better chance of getting a fair trial.
Whatever the hell that is nowadays.
Last edited by TheViking85; 05-10-2013 at 07:34 PM..
Reason: Removed Orphaned quote
This is a topic I've been thinking about and I'm interested what others think about it. I ask that people take a minute to objectively consider the issue instead of leaping to the determination that "of course it's good because the US has the best legal system in the world".
I definitely think the thought behind it is noble. "A jury of your peers" sounds like a good way to ensure that a defendant gets a just and fair trial. It also made a lot of sense at the time the constitution was written considering the British inspired class system that that permeated society at the time, where the regular person had few ways to assert his rights, if he had any. I wonder, though, if it really is a good system in reality to have lay people interpreting often complex laws and evaluating even more complex evidence.
From what I have seen and read way too often jurors make their determinations based on emotion, preconceived notions and sometimes blatant misunderstandings. I've seen interviews with jurors where they have dismissed testimony because they didn't like the witness or where their feelings for attorneys have effected their decisions. Of course everyone knows this and the court room has become theater as a result. But should what the defendant is wearing or who is sitting in the front row in the gallery really matter?
I've been following the Jodi Arias trial a bit and listened to reporters who had been in the court room give reports about what the jury was doing during certain testimony. According to them the jury appeared bored and uninterested during scientific testimony. As I understand it that's quite common and my interpretation of that is that that's because they don't understand the testimony.
Law is complicated which we have some of our brightest train for years to become lawyers. Science is also complicated and scientists, they too some of our brightest, also train for years to become experts in their respective fields. Still we expect lay people to evaluate their work and interpret the law and allow them to make life and death decisions based on their understanding of these things. Wouldn't professionals be better equipped to evaluate evidence and the law and less likely to make decisions based on feelings and unrelated issues?
What do you think? Is the layman jury system a good system? Why or why not?
I believe in the jury system, but not a jury of my peers. I was on a jury for a malpractice suit and it was eye-opening. First, it required some knowledge of the human body, which not all the jurors had, then it required that the jury was impartial despite the fact that the plaintiff was a older women of modest means while the doctor sat behind a table, expressionless, in a $1500 suit. It almost did not matter that the woman gave incorrect information to the doctor about her taking the prescribed medication, her diet, and even her smoking. Several of the jurors said that we really ought to award the lady a few thousand dollars just to help her financially. There were just enough wiser heads on the jury to nix that idea.
As a lawyer, I have tried any number of cases in front of juries over the years. There are a number of serious problems with the system. Here are a few, I've personally observed:
1. A large percentage of people summoned don't come. You can argue how representative of the community those that do come really are.
2. If a county has both an urban/rural composition what likely will occur is that those from rural areas will come and many from urban areas will fail to show up. This may tell us something about how different groups feel about their obligations of citizenship. Again, it results in some segments of the community being present in numbers greater or lesser than their normal proportions.
3. There is an amazing amount of apathy among jurors. Many simply do not care about the travails of others in the community. Some do care, but I would not call it a majority. The overwhelming compunction that exists is to avoid service or get it over as fast as possible, regardless of what happens to the parties in the case. I have always tried to avoid letting a jury begin deliberations on a Friday. If they do, chances are, they will rush through things too quickly just so everyone can get home early and begin the weekend.
4. To the extent that jurors do reflect a community, they reflect its bad parts as well as its good parts. The bad includes bigotry, sexism, homophobia and a xenophobia that often is directed towards foreigners or even those who have foreign sounding names. Perhaps, even worse, the values of the community may include a dislike for those with advanced college degrees or special expertise. Ignorance abounds in many places in the country and one should never make the make the mistake of thinking a jury can grasp any testimony about scientific or technological matters.
5. The juror nullification movement is a horrible idea. However, some jurors now literally believe they can ignore the court's instructions, ignore the evidence presented in the case, ignore the lawyer's arguments, and instead arrive at any conclusion they want too. This isn't the role of juries. The role of juries is a limited one and that role is too simply "find the facts" in a case.
6. As a rule, juries make the decision in criminal cases correctly most of the time because the issues are very simple. Is the defendant innocent or guilty? In civil cases, juries can be an utter disaster. The issues here are more complex and jury verdicts are highly inconsistent.
Because of the Constitution, we are pretty much stuck with jury trials. It doesn't mean its always a good thing or even a good thing most of the time. It does mean we have to live with it.
I understand the apathy you mention regarding prospective jurors. However, to me that does not mean the system is wrong or bad. I happen to agree that if a member of the community does something wrong we as members of the same community should be involved in how that individual pay the price for whatever wrongdoing.
Sure, the system is not perfect but what would you prefer? Only by a judge? Have a cookie cutter book that tell us exactly what sentence to give regardless of the anything else but the action done? Take care.
I happen to agree that if a member of the community does something wrong we as members of the same community should be involved in how that individual pay the price for whatever wrongdoing.
The community has nothing to do with how an individual pays the price now (with a few rare exceptions). The judge normally determines the sentence, not the jury. The jury (the community) only decides if the person is guilty and if so, of what. I'm really glad that the community is not determining how someone should pay the price for wrong doing. That would likely lead to arbitrary, unjust and emotion driven decisions which are things that should never be involved in the justice system.
Last edited by TheViking85; 05-12-2013 at 07:33 AM..
Reason: Removed Orphaned quote and respond.
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.
) There was a very self-important man who told the rest of us that he would be the jury foreman because "he had been a member of the military".
