Change the Jury system! - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Meridious · #76 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

This is absurd.

The principle of trial by a jury of one's peers is the bedrock of the justice of the Common Law tradition.

And if America is filled with large numbers of High School dropouts and people on Welfare or other government programs, then it is important that jury selections reflect this. A jury of peers is what that is.

Putting selective or arbitrary requirements and/or special qualifications upon jury service can only represent a desire or plan to abuse the justice system for some nefarious political purpose.

A trial in front of a jury of your peers is the single greatest defense against arbitrary government.

Yes. And that is why there is a system in place which allows the lawyers to dismiss a certain number of prospective jurors WITHOUT CAUSE... meaning they don't have to give reason.

If there is somone who is just so mentally dead that they should not be on the jury, the defense and prosecution can dismiss them.

Also, a case CAN be made regarding lack of education and the propective juror can be summarily dismissed...but it has nothing to do with "diplomas."

The US system has it covered as best it can and still keep the jury "of your peers."

Diuretic · #77 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007

The US has the peremptory challenge in common with every other common law jurisdiction -

Peremptory challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tradition of trial by jury - as MM pointed out - is central to the criminal justice process (albeit in some jurisdictions the deft can elect for trial by judge alone) and comes to all of us from the English common law many hundreds of years ago. Wisely the US Founding Fathers kept the jury system when independence was gained from Britain.

Birdzeye · #78 (**permalink**) 02-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentorange

Thing is though Steve, I've got a degree and I've also been on unemployment benefit ( not quite the same as welfare if I understand the American system ) both before and after I got my degree. My intelligence didn't suddenly go up when I got my degree and it didn't suddenly drop when I was signing on. There are many perfectly intelligent people who have never got a degree for whatever reason ( my father is a good example ) and equally I met people at university who had all the common sense of a particularly dense Mule.

In short, for me simple possession of college degree is no guarantee of the ability to be a good juror.

I agree wholeheartedly. I too have a degree and I've also been on unemployment.

I know some people with less education than me who have a lot of smarts and common sense, and I also know some college grads who can barely tie their shoelaces.

Publius · #79 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007

The idea of restricting a jury's composition to college grads is overkill. There are more effective and less discriminatory ways to balance the jury pool.

1) It should be a civil offense for an employer to discriminate against someone based on jury service.

2) Each person should get paid what they would have been paid for their workday.

3) A potential juror should have to show actual hardship to avoid his/her civic duty.

Birdzeye · #80 (**permalink**) 04-05-2007

Quote:

2) Each person should get paid what they would have been paid for their workday.

That was one peeve I had about jury duty. When I served three days of jury duty, I was paid less than minimum wage. It wasn't a hardship for me, because my employer grants paid "court leave" for jury duty, but it was the principle of the state getting away with such pathetic compensation to people fulfilling their civic duty.

Mrs. M · #81 (**permalink**) 04-29-2007

LOL I saw the title of this thread and knew immediately who started it!

Speedyer · #82 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddox

So instead of being either found guilty or not guilty by a wide diversity of people, coming from all layers of society, thus making sure that the defendant is looked upon in many different ways and from many different angles... you would rather just have some intelligencia running the show?

That way he can then bitch about rich people on the jury, because only rich people go to college.

Either way, I'm not totally sure Steveo would be entirely happy with such a outcome. *shrugs* Oh well, such is the unreasonable /illogical request that makes up Steveo. Also, since it isn't nice to talk about someone in the third person why they're around, Steveo will you ever post based on rational thought instead of just whatever pops into your head?

doniston · #83 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

It definitely needs changing. basically the requirement of a unanimous Verdict in criminal cases, and a vast majority in Civil cases, defeats the whole purpose of a jury trial.

steveox · #84 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Change the system like You must have a College Degree in order to serve on the jury.Dont like that ? Then dont go to college and you wont worry about being picked.

Wallaroo · #85 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveox

The differance between american courts and British courts are Lawyers can perform like a circus event in a trial. In British courts the judge wont allow lawyers act like clowns or an acting scene.American judges allow lawyers act like drama actors to make the jury belive in certain theories and juries will buy it sometimes.Just like in a TV commercial it makes you go out and buy that product. But in british courts if you acted like that the judge will throw the book at you and warn you next time you perform that stunt i will throw you in jail. Thats why you see stupidity in O.J Simpson Trail, Micheal Jackson Trial and Robert Blake trial because its a circus!

I agree 100%! The fact that there are so poor discipline in American courts makes the whole system a completely unreliable mess. I would like to compliment you for being so insightful - a lot of Americans could learn from that but I guess they are just too naive.

Diuretic · #86 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by doniston

It definitely needs changing. basically the requirement of a unanimous Verdict in criminal cases, and a vast majority in Civil cases, defeats the whole purpose of a jury trial.

In my jurisdiction civil trials are before a judge alone. In a criminal case a defendant can elect to have trial before jury or judge alone. In a jury trial the jury is asked to try to reach a unanimous verdict inside four hours. If they can't then the foreperson advises the judge and the judge then instructs the jury to find on its majority or to acquit. The only requirement for a unanimous verdict by the jury is in murder.

Jihad4Beer · #87 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveox

I say if you dont have a college degree you dont get on the jury.We need smarter people on the jurrors instead of High School dropouts and people who are on Welfare or other goverment programs.And we wouldnt have Stupid verdits like the O.J Simpson trial,Micheal Jackson Trial and Robert Blake trial

But aren't those the only type of people who actually show up for jury duty?

That and people who want an excuse not to go to their day job.

Diuretic · #88 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jihad4Beer

But aren't those the only type of people who actually show up for jury duty?

That and people who want an excuse not to go to their day job.

How are people compensated for jury duty?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/judiciary/35884-change-jury-system.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Untitled document	This thread	Refback	07-06-2007 09:45 PM