2
   

Jury system-Your opinions please

 
 
kev
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 09:25 pm
Is the Jury system the best or is it downright silly to ask lay people who may or may not be intelligent, who may or may not be racists or bigots, who may or may not have common sense, to sit in judgement of their peers?

Should a persons life depend on 12 such people? What do you think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,803 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 11:27 pm
Put it this way, in the case of a murder, rape or some other heinous crime...the victime likely didn't get the benefit of a sober second voice so, I'd say a jury of 12 has a far better chance of rendering a fair reasoned judgement to all the parties.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 02:36 am
Yah, but the guy (um, ok, often a guy) in the box din' necessarily do it...)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 02:36 am
Yah, but the guy (um, ok, often a guy) in the box din' necessarily do it...)
0 Replies
 
Turner 727
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 04:01 am
I personally like the jury system. Is 12 people enough? In this day and age, I'd say yes.

I was reading a book by John Varley - The Golden Globe. In the book there is a very big brother like entitiy called the Central Computer. CC for short. This massive computer runs all functions in Luna, and also acts like a concierge for the residents (some millions of them) of Luna. There is a court they use, Court of Common Sense I think it is, where in the day to day interactions between the CC and the resident, the CC might ask "what do you think of so and so" or "what do you think this policy?" Much like us spouting off on a forum, or at the water cooler. But hitting everyone. In this type of trial, there are litterally millions of jurors, and the prevailing (i.e. - 'common' sense) opinion generally ends up being the right thing. I think this would be a good system to have, where it's not a jury of your peers, it's a jury of everyone. Of course, logistically it would be very difficult to enact right now.

There are worse ways of being tried. And I'm sure there are better. I just haven't come across any of the better yet.
0 Replies
 
Camille
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 07:41 am
It's important citizens are involved in the process and the system isn't left to those in power. Too many times I've seen a judge unfairly favor one party or another and in today's world, truth is often masked by all the objections and game playing by the attorneys.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 09:14 am
I think the answer is in the number of jurors you are talking about. I would guess that by having 12 unanimous decisions as in a criminal trial, it lowers the incidence of racism and bigotry and increases the likelihood of commonsense. Also considering that the attorneys can boot a good number of people off the jury pool without any reason can also decrease the incidence of racism and bigotry.

If there is a good judge on the bench, s/he will give explicit instructions for even the less intelligent juror. There is testimony of experts, hopefully explaining in laymen's terms, from both sides of the trial.

I would also be more concerned to have so called experts determine my outcome. I believe this would increase the chances of bigotry. What would they be an expert in - the legal system, criminal minds, etc?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 09:21 am
Anyone could quibble over the number of jurrors I guess. But I'd rather be in a situation where 12 jurors and a judge all agree than to have to rely on the decision of one person alone. The jury system is better than a single presiding judge IMO.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jury system-Your opinions please
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/25/2021 at 02:36:19