Zeppo, I would agree with you that having juries simply for the purpose of determining the sentence to be applied is probably not necessary. On the subject of paid professional jurors however, I must disagree.
One of the benefits of having random juries is that the folks on the jury have a fresh point of view. I can only imagine a bunch of professionals sitting around the table, all of them having been there for a few years. They might even be friends at this point, and their objectivity will become clouded.
It could easily develop into a mindset that goes something like this – “Oh, here’s another one of these guys. Remember the case back last year when the defendant used the same excuse? Looks like we have another one of them. I think he’s guilty just like the other guy, he’s lying through his teeth.”
I think you get my point. Instead of evaluating each case and the evidence involved, justice would become rote, evidence would begin to blend with previous judgements, and the truth would be ill served. A common way of thinking would develop that would interfere with an honest appraisal of the facts. No matter how well intentioned a professional jury might be, group think can easily become the norm. Favorite judges or attorneys would receive decisions that they are used to getting and the whole enterprise would become another good old boy network.
Yes, jury duty is an interruption of our usual routine, and inexperience may from time to time lead to false outcomes. Judges, and the appeals process exist in part to overcome those mistakes. In the long run, a mix of average citizens coming together in a random selection process will do more to assure a fair trial. The abuses by the powers that be in mankind’s past argue against a chosen group being the deciders. Our Constitution guarantees a jury of our peers. To me that means everyday working folks, men and women, of all ages and walks of life, participating together to ensure that none of us gets screwed by the system.
Is it perfect,no. It it the best way in an imperfect world, yes.
I wasn’t arguing for professional juries, quite the opposite. I don’t want a judge deciding, either. I’m not sure that “a mix of average citizens coming together in a random selection process will do more to assure a fair trial.” The instances where that hasn’t proven the case are legion and this country has suffered for it. I don’t have a solution, but as it exists now, it’s definitely broken.
Joe Oliva on Mar 01
Zeppo,
I would agree with you that having juries simply for the purpose of determining the sentence to be applied is probably not necessary. On the subject of paid professional jurors however, I must disagree.
One of the benefits of having random juries is that the folks on the jury have a fresh point of view. I can only imagine a bunch of professionals sitting around the table, all of them having been there for a few years. They might even be friends at this point, and their objectivity will become clouded.
It could easily develop into a mindset that goes something like this – “Oh, here’s another one of these guys. Remember the case back last year when the defendant used the same excuse? Looks like we have another one of them. I think he’s guilty just like the other guy, he’s lying through his teeth.”
I think you get my point. Instead of evaluating each case and the evidence involved, justice would become rote, evidence would begin to blend with previous judgements, and the truth would be ill served. A common way of thinking would develop that would interfere with an honest appraisal of the facts. No matter how well intentioned a professional jury might be, group think can easily become the norm. Favorite judges or attorneys would receive decisions that they are used to getting and the whole enterprise would become another good old boy network.
Yes, jury duty is an interruption of our usual routine, and inexperience may from time to time lead to false outcomes. Judges, and the appeals process exist in part to overcome those mistakes. In the long run, a mix of average citizens coming together in a random selection process will do more to assure a fair trial. The abuses by the powers that be in mankind’s past argue against a chosen group being the deciders. Our Constitution guarantees a jury of our peers. To me that means everyday working folks, men and women, of all ages and walks of life, participating together to ensure that none of us gets screwed by the system.
Is it perfect,no. It it the best way in an imperfect world, yes.
Zeppo007 on Mar 25
I wasn’t arguing for professional juries, quite the opposite. I don’t want a judge deciding, either. I’m not sure that “a mix of average citizens coming together in a random selection process will do more to assure a fair trial.” The instances where that hasn’t proven the case are legion and this country has suffered for it. I don’t have a solution, but as it exists now, it’s definitely broken.