NationStates Jolt Archive

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems. The fact that the guilty should often walk free in a democratic society is the price people must pay for the protection of the innocent, and it is the price that I am prepared to pay.

2) Juries are never 'independent' in practice. In fact most ordinary people tend to have prejudices of one sort or another. Now I am not saying that everybody is a racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., but consider how you might feel if you saw a defendant who looked like the guy who got your ass in a bad way the other day because of a disagreement. Could that influence your verdict? Also, consider that jurors could often be influenced by witty or even good looking lawyers, even when their arguments are obviously hogwash.

So who should try people, then?

You are missing the point entirely. People are fucking morons. But no matter who does the trial, the decision maker will be a idiot.

We'd be much better off destroying all humans.

I would rather be tried by a jury of 12 'normal' people than be found guilty by a 103 year old senile judge who doesn't know what day it is

People already have the right to not be tried by a jury. You are complaining about a non-issue.

So who should try people, then?

I would suggest an amended system, where ALL jurors are required to take a short course in the rules of justice. Also, I would require that all 'guilty' verdicts be followed by a second evaluation with juries made to consider again whether the evidence is sufficient based on the rules of evidence that would be formally stated very clearly after the first verdict just in case they weren't understood the first time. Also, if a person was at a later date proven innocent after a jury had found them guilty far a crime then all the jurors on that jury have a certain amount of their pay deducted and would have the false verdict on their records. Oh and yes, I do think that people should be paid a small amount for jury service.

You are complaining about a non-issue really.

1) Everyone has the right to be tried by a tribunal as opposed to a jury.
2) Lawyers from both the prosecution and defence are allowed veto members of the jury. ie. if a lawyer thinks that a jury member will not consider the facts properly and end up wrongly convicting or clearing the defendent then they can ask to have the member replaced. I do believe the same goes for judges. If you can show they have been prejudiced you can have them replaced.

However, this process with the jury, so I'm told, normally ends up with most of the jury members being selected because they will be swayed by emotive arguments. With most of the more rational intelligent jury not being selected.

You are complaining about a non-issue really.

1) Everyone has the right to be tried by a tribunal as opposed to a jury.
2) Lawyers from both the prosecution and defence are allowed veto members of the jury. ie. if a lawyer thinks that a jury member will not consider the facts properly and end up wrongly convicting or clearing the defendent then they can ask to have the member replaced. I do believe the same goes for judges. If you can show they have been prejudiced you can have them replaced.

However, this process with the jury, so I'm told, normally ends up with most of the jury members being selected because they will be swayed by emotive arguments. With most of the more rational intelligent jury not being selected.

I've lived in the UK and in Ireland where they have a different system.

I've lived in the UK and in Ireland where they have a different system.Well I was refering to the UK system as I'm aware of it. Specifically the England and Wales system. Where abouts have you experienced the system to be different?

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems. The fact that the guilty should often walk free in a democratic society is the price people must pay for the protection of the innocent, and it is the price that I am prepared to pay.

2) Juries are never 'independent' in practice. In fact most ordinary people tend to have prejudices of one sort or another. Now I am not saying that everybody is a racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., but consider how you might feel if you saw a defendant who looked like the guy who got your ass in a bad way the other day because of a disagreement. Could that influence your verdict? Also, consider that jurors could often be influenced by witty or even good looking lawyers, even when their arguments are obviously hogwash.

I believe you can waive your right to a trial by jury.

As one comedian put it "I would never put my fate in the hands of twelve people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty."

However, I would see juries as less of a problem than prosecutors who are elected. Something as important as our justice system should not be controlled by someone corrupt enough to win an election. And as for elected judges? That's just asking for trouble.

I believe you can waive your right to a trial by jury.

As one comedian put it "I would never put my fate in the hands of twelve people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty."

However, I would see juries as less of a problem than prosecutors who are elected. Something as important as our justice system should not be controlled by someone corrupt enough to win an election. And as for elected judges? That's just asking for trouble.

You mean as opposed to being appointed for life by another corrupt Politician? At least if they are elected there's a chance to get them out of office.

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems. The fact that the guilty should often walk free in a democratic society is the price people must pay for the protection of the innocent, and it is the price that I am prepared to pay.

2) Juries are never 'independent' in practice. In fact most ordinary people tend to have prejudices of one sort or another. Now I am not saying that everybody is a racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., but consider how you might feel if you saw a defendant who looked like the guy who got your ass in a bad way the other day because of a disagreement. Could that influence your verdict? Also, consider that jurors could often be influenced by witty or even good looking lawyers, even when their arguments are obviously hogwash.

1. I support trial by jury but would be happier if, as I've seen evidence of, people who are exactly the opposite of 'outstanding citizens' were not chosen to be part of the jury. The opinions of two people who have been brough up in exactly the same school can vary enourmously, and part of deciding guilt or innocence is often down to opinion, eg. "was the man walking naked around the town indecent? did he intend to cause alarm or distress?" - to which there can be different answers based partially on opinion. Therefore it's important to have more than one opinion present instead of just the judge's. Additionally, as has been seen from the low sentences meeted out to far too many criminals (in the UK at least), judges are too much out of date - thus ordinary members of the public, who are the best (out of a limited range of options) to provide views close to or the same as those of other ordinary members of the public. So jury trials should be mandatory.

And I personally would rather have a murderer or rapist off the streets than let them harm loads of people because of irrational fears about locking up the wrong person (which does happen, but only in a minority of cases, and is usually due to false evidence etc which neither a judge or jury can do a lot about if they don't know the evidence is false). In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) almost always will not prosecute serious cases (such as rape) if there is not a massive amount of evidence - so the "his word against hers" case virtually never makes it to court, even if the case is of a wife accusing her husband of rape - all he has to do is claim it was consensual, and stupidly it is unlikely to get to court. Generally I would argue for some evidence, but in such a case where it is almost always unlikely that there would be any evidence, the case NEEDS to go to trial in order to protect someone who may be constantly being raped by her husband - without allowing this, it basically gives a man free reign to rape his wife as often as he wants and makes the law against that completely pointless.

2. Neither are judges.

...However, this process with the jury, so I'm told, normally ends up with most of the jury members being selected because they will be swayed by emotive arguments. With most of the more rational intelligent jury not being selected.

I'm guessing that's most likely true.

I propose that jury members are selected by the judge and only not allowed if they are either nuts or biased, and that the jury never gets to see the faces of the victims or know their names until after the trial has been concluded.

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

Here are my answers:

1) They are not supposed to have experience with rules of evidence. That's what lawyers are for. Each side in the trial has an advocate; one for the prosecution and one for the defense.

Each advocate is supposed to know the rules of evidence - and the law - such that they can argue their opinion to the Jury. All of the burden - in the US, anyway - is on the prosecution's shoulders. They have to convince the Jury that the defendant is guilty. The defense advocate really only needs to counter what the prosecution presents.

2) This why potential Jurors must go through Voir Dire. Each advocate is allowed to interview those selected to be on the Jury in order that prejudices and biases can be mitigated.

If one lawyer's arguments are flawed, it is up to the other lawyer to demonstrate so and prove it.

As for "good looking," have you ever seen Racehorse Hanes? He is recognized as one of the premiere defense counsels in the US, yet is an ugly coot.

Just because lawyers are handsome on TV or in the movies, doesn't mean they are in real life.

Now for an equally important - in my view - reason to have Jury trials; Jury nullification.

When a trial takes place, the accused is not the only defendant; the law is on trial, too.

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
-- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
If you are on a Jury and you believe that - though the defendant did break the law and is, technically, guilty - if you believe that the law itself is bad, then it is your duty to find the accused innocent, even though he did, without a doubt, break that bad law.

More quotes;

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
-- John Adams, Founding Father and second President of the US

"[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law."
-- DC Court of Appeals, United States v. Dougherty, 1972

"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father and first Secretary of the Treasury

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third President of the US

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."
-- 1788; 2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267

I would suggest an amended system, where ALL jurors are required to take a short course in the rules of justice.

Bad idea. Then, all Jurors become mini-lawyers.

Also, I would require that all 'guilty' verdicts be followed by a second evaluation with juries made to consider again whether the evidence is sufficient based on the rules of evidence that would be formally stated very clearly after the first verdict just in case they weren't understood the first time.

Another bad idea. Juries are not bound by anything other than their conscience. They are not bound by rules of evidence or even the law.

To bind the Jury removes from them their independence.

Also, if a person was at a later date proven innocent after a jury had found them guilty far a crime then all the jurors on that jury have a certain amount of their pay deducted and would have the false verdict on their records.

There are no records kept on Jurors. To do so, AGAIN, removes from them their independence.

Jurors are not liable for their decisions and cannot be punished for them. To do so would not give them the freedom to decide guilt or innocence based upon the merits of the case presented to them. They would be deciding based upon possible repercussions to themselves and not on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Oh and yes, I do think that people should be paid a small amount for jury service.

They already are.

As one comedian put it "I would never put my fate in the hands of twelve people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty."

This comedian should talk to OJ Simpson. His twelve got him acquitted of a murder that I believe he committed.

Now for an equally important - in my view - reason to have Jury trials; Jury nullification.

When a trial takes place, the accused is not the only defendant; the law is on trial, too.

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."
-- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
If you are on a Jury and you believe that - though the defendant did break the law and is, technically, guilty - if you believe that the law itself is bad, then it is your duty to find the accused innocent, even though he did, without a doubt, break that bad law.



I wish more juries would use that when deciding simple drug possession cases.

I propose that jury members are selected by the judge and only not allowed if they are either nuts or biased,

So, instead of the prosecution disallowing those he sees as biased to his case and the defense disallowing those biased to his case (whereby any potential juror must go through a prosecution sieve and a defense sieve, thus mitigating any bias), you want to have only one filter that may have its own biases.

In the US, judges only judge the proceedings, not the verdict.

Ever hear of the proverbial "hanging judge?" If you were an innocent accused of murder, would you want this guy picking your jury or your defense counsel at least getting a smack at it?

I don't want the jury on my trial to have been picked by a single man.

and that the jury never gets to see the faces of the victims or know their names until after the trial has been concluded.

This is ridiculous. Many times the victim is called as a witness. How can a jury make a decision if they are not allowed to see a witness?

They already are.
No they're not.

I wish more juries would use that when deciding simple drug possession cases.

Most people are not aware that they have the duty to do so. Many judges admonish the jury that they are to decide a case based only upon the merits of the law, but that is wrong. The law is on trial, too.

I would like to see legislation barring judges from giving the above mentioned admonishment to juries.

But, in the US, we have a very poor system of teaching Civics. When I had it in high school, the teacher was a coach who was more concerned with the latest scrimmage tapes than teaching the topic. In fact, he was taking government courses at the local junior college as he taught our class.

It didn't help that he'd come to class 15-20 minutes late on school days after football practice or a game.

So, a better civics program would be a help.

No they're not.

Yes, they are. I've been called six times and served twice. Paid each time.

It's not much - a whopping $6 a day, going to $10 - as I recall - if one is actually selected and serves more than three days.

But, they are paid.

There is also legislation in Texas to try to get the pay raised to, I believe, $45/day.

Yes, they are. I've been called six times and served twice. Paid each time.

It's not much - a whopping $6 a day, going to $10 - as I recall - if one is actually selected and serves more than three days.

But, they are paid.

There is also legislation in Texas to try to get the pay raised to, I believe, $45/day.

Well, maybe in your own little world they are- but in this thread and the legal system that is being talked about - juries are not paid.

I've also done jury service (twice, although I was exempt for one) and I was not paid.

Well, maybe in your own little world they are- but in this thread and the legal system that is being talked about - juries are not paid.

I've also done jury service (twice, although I was exempt for one) and I was not paid.

So, you're British? And, perhaps, the author of the thread is? Hmm, never know it by looking at you or your locations in the sidebar.

OK, I'll amend; In the US, juries are paid.

With the exception of obvious trolls, this is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. You already can choose not to be tried by a jury. Why you would do such an amazingly stupid thing is beyond me. Juries are what keeps the government from throwing you in jail for shits and giggles, since they first have to convince 12 ordinary people - not other members of government - that you belong there.
In a society that believes letting the guilty go free is better than putting the innocent in jail, trial by a jury of one's peers is the fairest system possible.

Name the country where jurors don't get paid. It's not England. It's not Canada. It's not Australia. In some jurisdictions, they only get paid if their employer doesn't pay them, but every country with a jury system compensates jurors.
Also, the comedian referred to in this thread is Dave Barry. And the quote is wrong. He said "the Sixth Amendment states that if you are accused of a crime, you have the right to a trial before a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty." He also said "We operate under a jury system in this country, and as much as we complain about it, we have to admit that we know of no better system, except possibly flipping a coin."

Name the country where jurors don't get paid. It's not England. It's not Canada. It's not Australia. In some jurisdictions, they only get paid if their employer doesn't pay them, but every country with a jury system compensates jurors.

Bam. (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/the-legal-system/judiciary/jury_service/?searchterm=jury)

I say we go back to old school trial methods. Trial by combat, trial by hot water, trial by cake.

Sure. That'll work much better.

You should ask OJ Simpson or Micheal Jackson this question.

See, this is why juries should be made up of paid professionals. You take a free class for a year or so, and you can be called to a case. Most professional jurors would have other jobs, but their employers would be required by law to grant them leaves of absence to serve on juries. During the jury gig, they would be paid (handsomely, I would hope) and sequestered in a fairly nice hotel. They would be allowed to receive visits from loved ones and hear about unrelated news; however, just like current jurors, avoiding news articles are reports about their own case would be part of the job.

Also, another reform I would make - jurors should be sequestered separately and not permitted to discuss the trial with each other. People should come to their own decisions about the verdict. Also, juries should be made up of nine people.

All nine people, at any given point, enter a verdict - "guilty," "not guilty", or "not ready to answer." If two or more people enter a "not ready to answer" verdict, the trial goes on. However, if eight people enter a verdict, it breaks down like this.

Seven people must enter a "guilty" verdict to find guilty on any given charge. To find "not guilty," it only takes a simple majority. If there's a majority for "guilty" but not seven, the trial goes on with new evidence unless both sides have rested their case. If there's a hung jury, the trial starts anew with another jury.

Upon casting a verdict, a short reasoning statement must be supplied along with it. It must refer to some piece of evidence or the lack thereof; if a final verdict is reached, the judge may review these statements just to make sure that a rogue juror isn't voting out of spite, anger, or prejudice.

For sentencing, judges would be given more stringent guidelines that would be more uniform, so two people in different counties don't get completely differing sentences for the same crime. The idea has merit, although it's probably very difficult to implement. Plus, the jury screening sequence would be a lot easier, since every Tom, Dick, and Harry wouldn't be required to do it.

With the exception of obvious trolls, this is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. You already can choose not to be tried by a jury. Why you would do such an amazingly stupid thing is beyond me. Juries are what keeps the government from throwing you in jail for shits and giggles, since they first have to convince 12 ordinary people - not other members of government - that you belong there.
In a society that believes letting the guilty go free is better than putting the innocent in jail, trial by a jury of one's peers is the fairest system possible.

not to mention, in a Trial by Jury, a chance for a mis-trial and Hung Jury are greater than having a trial without jury.

and as it was mentioned... you can choose not to be tried by a jury. and sometimes that is better.

Obviously trial by jury is a flawed system Juries have the annoying habit of sitting through hours of actual evidence and then making a decision based upon it. This often results in the wrong people being acquited or even worse, found guilty.

This is a backwards and primitive way of doing things. As is obvious to any right thinking american, guilt or innocence should depend solely upon how much the victims story tugs on our heartstrings, vs. how photogenic/famous the accused is. Some consideration should also be given as to whether or not the alleged crime falls under the 'right on' school of jurisprudence and based upon progressive (good) thought or is a traditional (bad and therefore not serious) crime.

Any actual casual connection between the accused and the crime is wholly immaterial to guilt.


As such, cases should be disposed of, not by trial, but by a spot poll of Rosie O'Donell fans, third graders and NYC elemetary school teachers.

Obviously trial by jury is a flawed system etc., etc., etc.

I'm going out on a limb and assuming that there is an implied [/dripping_sarcasm] in there somewhere...

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems.

Jesus, you're a moron. and that's an insult to morons.

Those who serve on juries are instructed as to what the rules of evidence are, and what they can and cannot disregard in terms of evidence and testimony introduced during a trial.

As for your your third sentence, the staggering stupidity contained therein is so massive I'm seriously afraid it will suck the entire universe into it's maw of 'tardness.

See, this is why juries should be made up of paid professionals. You take a free class for a year or so, and you can be called to a case. Most professional jurors would have other jobs, but their employers would be required by law to grant them leaves of absence to serve on juries. During the jury gig, they would be paid (handsomely, I would hope) and sequestered in a fairly nice hotel. They would be allowed to receive visits from loved ones and hear about unrelated news; however, just like current jurors, avoiding news articles are reports about their own case would be part of the job.

Also, another reform I would make - jurors should be sequestered separately and not permitted to discuss the trial with each other. People should come to their own decisions about the verdict. Also, juries should be made up of nine people.

All nine people, at any given point, enter a verdict - "guilty," "not guilty", or "not ready to answer." If two or more people enter a "not ready to answer" verdict, the trial goes on. However, if eight people enter a verdict, it breaks down like this.

Seven people must enter a "guilty" verdict to find guilty on any given charge. To find "not guilty," it only takes a simple majority. If there's a majority for "guilty" but not seven, the trial goes on with new evidence unless both sides have rested their case. If there's a hung jury, the trial starts anew with another jury.

Upon casting a verdict, a short reasoning statement must be supplied along with it. It must refer to some piece of evidence or the lack thereof; if a final verdict is reached, the judge may review these statements just to make sure that a rogue juror isn't voting out of spite, anger, or prejudice.

For sentencing, judges would be given more stringent guidelines that would be more uniform, so two people in different counties don't get completely differing sentences for the same crime. The idea has merit, although it's probably very difficult to implement. Plus, the jury screening sequence would be a lot easier, since every Tom, Dick, and Harry wouldn't be required to do it.

Sounds way too much like a game show. Isn't there someone that posts regularly, who also works on 'reality' shows? Maybe he can bring this into production.

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems. The fact that the guilty should often walk free in a democratic society is the price people must pay for the protection of the innocent, and it is the price that I am prepared to pay.

2) Juries are never 'independent' in practice. In fact most ordinary people tend to have prejudices of one sort or another. Now I am not saying that everybody is a racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., but consider how you might feel if you saw a defendant who looked like the guy who got your ass in a bad way the other day because of a disagreement. Could that influence your verdict? Also, consider that jurors could often be influenced by witty or even good looking lawyers, even when their arguments are obviously hogwash.

the system was probably good for it's day but it's day has passed.....I think criminal prosecution has become so scientific that most jurors are incapable of fully comprehending what they are being told.....OJ Simpson trial, "if the glove fits, you must acquit" WTF was that, jurors being swayed by a fancy rhyme....I don't know what to suggest but maybe it's time for professional jurors, those who who can understand the evidence and won't be swayed by emotion....that goes for judges too,some of them complete idiots....and in the case of someone like OJ, if new evidence surfaces put the bastard on trial again, the wrongfully convicted can have a new trial why not the wrongfully released....

the system was probably good for it's day but it's day has passed.....I think criminal prosecution has become so scientific that most jurors are incapable of fully comprehending what they are being told.....OJ Simpson trial, "if the glove fits, you must acquit" WTF was that, jurors being swayed by a fancy rhyme....I don't know what to suggest but maybe it's time for professional jurors, those who who can understand the evidence and won't be swayed by emotion....that goes for judges too,some of them complete idiots....and in the case of someone like OJ, if new evidence surfaces put the bastard on trial again, the wrongfully convicted can have a new trial why not the wrongfully released....
The OJ case is an exception to the millions of cases that are handled properly. The prosecutor didn't do the best job with the case, either. It was far more of a circus than a trial. Maybe that was the answer that we got back from the jury.

Trying to convince 12 unbiased citizens that a defendant is guilty is a tough job. And it ought to be. Prosecution still relies on evidence, as does the defense, so I don't see how you can say that the day is past for a fair trial.

Any lawyers out there? I had heard from a friend that practices real-estate law that there is a large database type program that a lot of criminal lawyers use. You put in the facts and out comes the most likely sentence. He called it Canned Law.

if it is truelly a jury of your peers why would they convict you of anything.

if they were your peers then they should understand your reasoning.

The OJ case is an exception to the millions of cases that are handled properly. The prosecutor didn't do the best job with the case, either. It was far more of a circus than a trial. Maybe that was the answer that we got back from the jury.

It was. I recall an interview where a juror said that they didn't believe that the prosecutor presented his case well enough.

Poor prosecution is not the fault of the Jury.

Trying to convince 12 unbiased citizens that a defendant is guilty is a tough job. And it ought to be. Prosecution still relies on evidence, as does the defense, so I don't see how you can say that the day is past for a fair trial.

Indeed. Hence the "innocent until proven guilty."

I was once told by a lawyer I know that if you're innocent and didn't commit the crime you're on trial for, you want for the trial to go without a jury - and have the case judged by the evidence alone.

However, if you were guilty and did do what you're on trial for, you want a jury. He felt they were easier to manipulate, and you had less to loose.

Buttom line in his reasoning was that juries were unreliable.

The OJ case is an exception to the millions of cases that are handled properly. The prosecutor didn't do the best job with the case, either. It was far more of a circus than a trial. Maybe that was the answer that we got back from the jury.

Trying to convince 12 unbiased citizens that a defendant is guilty is a tough job. And it ought to be. Prosecution still relies on evidence, as does the defense, so I don't see how you can say that the day is past for a fair trial.

Any lawyers out there? I had heard from a friend that practices real-estate law that there is a large database type program that a lot of criminal lawyers use. You put in the facts and out comes the most likely sentence. He called it Canned Law.

there are millions of cases and I'm sure they millions of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals.....DNA evidence is showing just a fraction of the errors committed in the justice system with people wrongfully accused and convicted, it's the tip of the iceberg....

the system was probably good for it's day but it's day has passed.....

Hardly. It is still the best system available, outside of direct telepathic readings. Even then, a Jury is still necessary to nullify bad laws.

I don't know what to suggest but maybe it's time for professional jurors, those who who can understand the evidence and won't be swayed by emotion....

That is exactly why a Jury is important; the humanity, the emotion. Otherwise, we could be judged by computers.

if new evidence surfaces put the bastard on trial again, the wrongfully convicted can have a new trial why not the wrongfully released....

Good lord! You want to bring in Napoleonic courts? Where, if the state doesn't like the outcome, they can retry over and over until they get the verdict they like? This is why we prohibit double jeopardy.

Why do you want the advantage to go to the state and not the People?

there are millions of cases and I'm sure they millions of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals.....DNA evidence is showing just a fraction of the errors committed in the justice system with people wrongfully accused and convicted, it's the tip of the iceberg....

Oi.

Save us from the "I'm sure" argument.

The overwhelming evidence is that the Jury system works.

And, again, with a Jury system, the law is held accountable, too. Without a Jury, an emotional, non-professional Jury, the People will be subject to punishment under BAD laws, too.

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems. The fact that the guilty should often walk free in a democratic society is the price people must pay for the protection of the innocent, and it is the price that I am prepared to pay.

2) Juries are never 'independent' in practice. In fact most ordinary people tend to have prejudices of one sort or another. Now I am not saying that everybody is a racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., but consider how you might feel if you saw a defendant who looked like the guy who got your ass in a bad way the other day because of a disagreement. Could that influence your verdict? Also, consider that jurors could often be influenced by witty or even good looking lawyers, even when their arguments are obviously hogwash.

Here's the thing.

I agree with your mistrust of juries. The majority of my fellow Americans are ignorant jackasses who would probably convict me of just about anything simply because I'm an uppity non-hetero atheist.

However, from personal experience I have to tell you that judges aren't all that much better. They're more educated, usually, and they tend to be marginally better informed, but they're not better people than any other segment of the population. They're just as easy to corrupt or bribe, perhaps more so in some cases. They're just as prone to let their personal opinions cloud their judgment. They're actually more likely to have become very jaded and cynical, even to the point where they partly stop caring.

Now, I'm NOT saying that all judges are this way. There are a ton of fantastic people on the bench. It's just important to remember that the black robe doesn't automatically make a lousy person turn into a good person.

The majority of my fellow Americans are ignorant jackasses who would probably convict me of just about anything simply because I'm an uppity non-hetero atheist.

And, this would come up in the trial because?

Such the victim, you are...

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury. Here are my reasons:

1) They are ordinary people with no experience of justice and so do not understand the rules of evidence. Most legal codes state that there must be "evidence beyond reasonable doubt" before a person should be found guilty. In my opinion one person's claim against another is NEVER sufficient evidence to find a person guilty no matter how genuine the claim seems. The fact that the guilty should often walk free in a democratic society is the price people must pay for the protection of the innocent, and it is the price that I am prepared to pay.

2) Juries are never 'independent' in practice. In fact most ordinary people tend to have prejudices of one sort or another. Now I am not saying that everybody is a racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., but consider how you might feel if you saw a defendant who looked like the guy who got your ass in a bad way the other day because of a disagreement. Could that influence your verdict? Also, consider that jurors could often be influenced by witty or even good looking lawyers, even when their arguments are obviously hogwash.

You elitist snob.

I think that overall, juries composed of common people are rather effective.

Just because someone is more educated doesn't make them any less susceptible to bullshit or prejudice.

It isn't perfect, but trial by jury is infinitely better than just being put in front of a wall and shot. If it was just left to the police to convict, then many more:eek: innocent people would be in jail than there are now.
Try to remember why juries were introduced in the first place!

My complaint about juries is that they don't give any reasons for their decisions. I would like for them to say what convinced them of the guilt of the accused. That way one could be more certain that the conviction was correct. (There might not be the a need for them to explain why they found the person innocent.)

My complaint about juries is that they don't give any reasons for their decisions.

To require a jury to justify its decision removes from the independence of the jury and opens them up to repercussions for their decision.

There is an assumed reason for a Juror's decision.

If they decide Guilty, then the prosecution successfully argued his case.
If they decide innocent, then the prosecution did not successfully argue his case.

I would like for them to say what convinced them of the guilt of the accused. That way one could be more certain that the conviction was correct.

What convinced them was the argument given by the prosecution. That is enough to know.

It strikes me that people are not aware of the inherent POWER of the Jury.

The Jury holds more power than the President, the Congress or the supreme Court.

The Jury can negate law, if it decides it is bad. Nothing can reverse the Jury's decision and nothing can prevent it from so deciding - unless these silly oversight ideas were to come to fruition.

And, this would come up in the trial because?

Such the victim, you are...
Any marginally-competant prosecutor would make sure it was brought up.

Also, they'd probably notice that I wouldn't swear on the Bible. :P

To require a jury to justify its decision removes from the independence of the jury and opens them up to repercussions for their decision.

There is an assumed reason for a Juror's decision.

If they decide Guilty, then the prosecution successfully argued his case.
If they decide innocent, then the prosecution did not successfully argue his case.
The problem is that it is assumed, and it has been showed that the assumptions are not always true. And that is problematic.

I don't see how it opens the jury up to reprecussions either, nor how it removes the independence of the jusry. Rather, I see that the juries has to think through the case more when they have to write why they say that the person is guilty - a gut feeling or general persuasiveness of the prosecution is not enough.


What convinced them was the argument given by the prosecution. That is enough to know.
It wouldn't be to me, if I was the one on trial.

It strikes me that people are not aware of the inherent POWER of the Jury.

The Jury holds more power than the President, the Congress or the supreme Court.

The Jury can negate law, if it decides it is bad. Nothing can reverse the Jury's decision and nothing can prevent it from so deciding - unless these silly oversight ideas were to come to fruition.
...under the US legal system. You forgot to add that bit.

And it's not necessarily a good thing either - if the jury decides that the laws protecting for example women or minorities are bad laws, or if they decide the minorities aren't entitled to the same protections as the "ordinary folks" (See some cases from the south where black men were wrongfully convicted by all-white juries a couple of decades ago, which later were shown to be cases of miscarriage of justice) The problem remains: We don't know why they were convicted when they are convicted, and we cannot be sure that justice actually has been done.

Any marginally-competant prosecutor would make sure it was brought up.

And a marginally-competant defense attorney would say, "Objection! Relevancy?"

Also, they'd probably notice that I wouldn't swear on the Bible. :P

So?

You don't have to.

The recent Pádraig Nally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padraig_Nally) case here in Ireland shows how a jury can fail.

:mad:

Hm, wasn't the film and the book "The Jury" partly based on facts?

If this is the case - this would be a very good reason to be against such a system. If someone shoots someone in the court - is there any doubt that this was not a murder?

Are there such extreme cases in reality as well?

I prefer the German system. For such cases, there are only the judge, the lawyer and the prosecuter. Two of them should be (and in the most cases they are) independent.

With the exception of obvious trolls, this is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. You already can choose not to be tried by a jury.

I seriously doubt that. I spend quite a few hours a week working in (UK) courtrooms, and I've never heard of such a right.
Minor trials are handled in magistrates' court, without a jury.
Serious trials are handled in crown court, with a jury.
With some moderately serious crimes (known as 'hybrid' or 'either way' offences) you do have the right to trial by jury. If you insist on that right, or the magistrates feel it's too serious for them to handle, you go to crown court for a jury trial.

I cannot imagine why a person would choose to be tried by jury, unless they were blatantly guilty and fancied their chances of conning the jurors with some ludicrous story.

If you've ever heard of "the right to trial by jury", then I am proposing that people should have the right not to be tried by a jury.

They already have that right in the United States. A defendant may waive his/her right to a trial by jury and be tried by a judge only. The judge will then listen to the evidence just like in a jury trial and determine if the defendant is guilty or not.

Bam. (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/the-legal-system/judiciary/jury_service/?searchterm=jury)

How about reading the whole thing?
" If you are self-employed and work alone and where your attendance at jury service may mean you cannot earn a living, you may qualify for excusal from jury service. Contact the jury office of the Court for more information.

If you are in employment, the Juries Act 1976 ( Section 29 ) places a duty on your employer to allow you attend for jury service. It is further specified in the law that time spent on jury service is to be treated as if the employee were actually employed. In other words, if you are in employment and are attending for jury service, you are entitled to be paid while you are away from work. Anyone with a contract of employment (i.e., temporary workers, contract workers, etc.) is entitled to be paid by their employer while they are on jury service. There should also be no loss of any other employment rights while you serve on a jury. The Jury office will provide a certificate of attendance on request."

Like, bam, or something.

How about reading the whole thing?

If you are in employment, the Juries Act 1976 ( Section 29 ) places a duty on your employer to allow you attend for jury service. It is further specified in the law that time spent on jury service is to be treated as if the employee were actually employed. In other words, if you are in employment and are attending for jury service, you are entitled to be paid while you are away from work. Anyone with a contract of employment (i.e., temporary workers, contract workers, etc.) is entitled to be paid by their employer while they are on jury service. There should also be no loss of any other employment rights while you serve on a jury. The Jury office will provide a certificate of attendance on request."

Like, bam, or something.

Or... how about reading this line:


There is no payment for jury service.

Now, if you go back to what the issue was at hand - jurors getting paid for their time in the courtroom - I am correct. Never was my point about 'compensation' from their employers as that =/= 'paid by the court'. If I was to say "Jurors don't even get compensated for their trouble!" you would be right. However, as the question was:

Name the country where jurors don't get paid.

I am, in fact, correct.

So, yeah, 'like bam or something' smartass.