Reply
Tue 8 Aug, 2006 05:39 pm
I strongly feel that our jury system is hopeless antiquated. It was a good idea for hundreds of years when life was much simpler. However, in our present situation involving DNA, computers, RICO, Internet, etc., the members of a jury of our peers are hopelessly unequipped.
Illustrative of this problem are the results in the OJ, Menendez, and Blake cases.
I understand the Continent uses a jury composed of just a few, very educated people. One member would have had legal training.
I would appreciate getting your input on this.
Merry, I don't see much of a relationship.
Our present jury system is ponderous and, in our technological society, operates poorly.
Consider the recent Enron trial. While the end result was probably correct, I doubt that the jury could really understand the issues, such as the offshore tax-saving partnerships and accounting disputes.
The way things work at present, if you have a poor case, you ask for a jury trial. This is because you can't predict what a jury may do.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Advocate wrote:I strongly feel that our jury system is hopeless antiquated. It was a good idea for hundreds of years when life was much simpler. However, in our present situation involving DNA, computers, RICO, Internet, etc., the members of a jury of our peers are hopelessly unequipped.
Illustrative of this problem are the results in the OJ, Menendez, and Blake cases.
I understand the Continent uses a jury composed of just a few, very educated people. One member would have had legal training.
I would appreciate getting your input on this.
It is a fundamental right to be judged by one's peers, as opposed to a few aristocrats. Sorry you can't see that.
I've served on juries several times and have been impressed with how seriously and intelligently everyone took their responsibilities. The system works, as far as I'm concerned, except when celebrities are involved.
And when a defendant is too poor to afford good representation...
D'artagnan wrote:I've served on juries several times and have been impressed with how seriously and intelligently everyone took their responsibilities. The system works, as far as I'm concerned, except when celebrities are involved.
And when a defendant is too poor to afford good representation...
I agree - I too have served on several juries and feel for the most part they are taken very seriously by those serving. I know I wouldn't like having a select few decide fates for others - I can't imagine it would be unbiased and wouldn't open up the potential for blackmail, etc. You can be the most intelligent person in the world and be biased and open to corruption.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Brandon9000 wrote:It is a fundamental right to be judged by one's peers, as opposed to a few aristocrats. Sorry you can't see that.
A quick search through the lists of our judges of higher courts didn't mentioned more than a few "noblemen".
But since we don't have a aristrocaty since 1918 anymore one name is as good as the other.
As an aside: those really "few aristrocates" can judge only those trials/cases they've got by law:
Basic Law (constitution of Germany)
Quote:Article 101.
(1) Extraordinary courts are inadmissible. No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Walter Hinteler wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:It is a fundamental right to be judged by one's peers, as opposed to a few aristocrats. Sorry you can't see that.
A quick search through the lists of our judges of higher courts didn't mentioned more than a few "noblemen".
But since we don't have a aristrocaty since 1918 anymore one name is as good as the other.
As an aside: those really "few aristrocates" can judge only those trials/cases they've got by law:
Basic Law (constitution of Germany)
Quote:Article 101.
(1) Extraordinary courts are inadmissible. No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge.
It should be more than obvious that I didn't mean aristocrat literally. I meant the rich, powerful, or politically connected. You may not think that being judged by one's peers is an fundamental right, but I most certainly do.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Brandon9000 wrote:
It should be more than obvious that I didn't mean aristocrat literally. I meant the rich, powerful, or politically connected. You may not think that being judged by one's peers is an fundamental right, but I most certainly do.
It wasn't obvious.
Regarding the salaries of judges, I don't think that they are rich.
Regarding their power, well, they are one of the powers of a democratic state.
Regarding their political connection - there's none, they must be independent (otherwise they couldn't be judges).
I prefer to be judged according to the law.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Walter Hinteler wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
It should be more than obvious that I didn't mean aristocrat literally. I meant the rich, powerful, or politically connected. You may not think that being judged by one's peers is an fundamental right, but I most certainly do.
It wasn't obvious.
Regarding the salaries of judges, I don't think that they are rich.
Regarding their power, well, they are one of the powers of a democratic state.
Regarding their political connection - there's none, they must be independent (otherwise they couldn't be judges).
I prefer to be judged according to the law.
I'm not talking about judges. Did you even read the post that opened this thread? I'm talking about the composition of juries.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Didn't YOU notice to what I responded?
Brandon9000 wrote:
It should be more than obvious that I didn't mean aristocrat literally. I meant the rich, powerful, or politically connected.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Walter Hinteler wrote:Didn't YOU notice to what I responded?
Brandon9000 wrote:
It should be more than obvious that I didn't mean aristocrat literally. I meant the rich, powerful, or politically connected.
All I said was that juries should be composed of one's peers. What exactly is your objection to that?
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Regarding the salaries of judges, I don't think that they are rich.
Regarding their power, well, they are one of the powers of a democratic state.
Regarding their political connection - there's none, they must be independent (otherwise they couldn't be judges).
I prefer to be judged according to the law.
Unfortunately even though judges are supposed to be independent with no political connection - doesn't mean that this is so - look at the Supreme court - the judges are nominated by the President - typically the President is only going to nominate some one that supports his viewpoints - granted the nomination is subject to approval, but by whom? More politicians - how could there be no political connection? The ideal is that they are impartial, but no individual no matter how open minded is 100% impartial - simply by experiencing life you develop certain viewpoints no matter how you attempt to not allow them affect your decision making - they will.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Brandon9000 wrote:
All I said was that juries should be composed of one's peers. What exactly is your objection to that?
The defense lawyers have the right to reject candidates for Jury duty, if they think, they aren' in the peer group.
For example, in rape cases, the majority of the Jury will be female.
If the accused is Black or another minority, the lawyers will try to seat another minority, to balance out the pool
In the US, defendants in both criminal and civil cases typically have the option of having their cases heard by a jury or by a judge. In practice, there's little difference between a judge hearing a case and a professional juror hearing a case. The establishment of a continental-style panel of professional jurors, then, doesn't add anything new to the current system, it merely takes away the jury option.
Re: JURY SYSTEMS
Miller wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
All I said was that juries should be composed of one's peers. What exactly is your objection to that?
The defense lawyers have the right to reject candidates for Jury duty, if they think, they aren' in the peer group.
For example, in rape cases, the majority of the Jury will be female.
If the accused is Black or another minority, the lawyers will try to seat another minority, to balance out the pool
The Prosecution also has the right to reject jurors. There is a number of jurors (can't remember precisely the number but each side gets the same) to reject for no reason. Then each side can reject for a specifc reason that would cause a bias - i.e. in a rape trial a prospective juror has been raped before.
The resulting impact (not in all cases of course) is that the jury is made of as much as possible as non-biased jurors.
I see that there is little (really none) support for my position.
It is doubtful that you would really get a jury of your peers. A typical jury might have a beautician, retired blue-collar worker, taxi driver, et al., regardless of the status of the defendant or the complexity of the case. Wealthy and sophisticated people seem to find a way out of serving. Thus, in a complex case, which is increasingly the norm, you are not likely to get justice with the USA-style jury. Certainly, Ken Lay didn't get a jury of top corporate officials. I wager that the members of his jury understood little of the issues, or even the words of the expert witnesses. He would have gotten justice with a jury of knowledgable, highly-educated, lay persons, including someone expert in the law.
OJ made out like a bandit (or should I say killer). He got a jury in which most of the members were very anti-police. They were not about to believe anything said by the police. Thus, although there was iron-clad blood, foot-print, motive, clothing, attempted-escape, etc., evidence, he was quickly acquitted. (He was later found liable for the murders in a civil case.)
Walter, does Germany have a jury system and, if so, what is it like?
Advocate wrote:I see that there is little (really none) support for my position.
It is doubtful that you would really get a jury of your peers. A typical jury might have a beautician, retired blue-collar worker, taxi driver, et al., regardless of the status of the defendant or the complexity of the case. Wealthy and sophisticated people seem to find a way out of serving. Thus, in a complex case, which is increasingly the norm, you are not likely to get justice with the USA-style jury. Certainly, Ken Lay didn't get a jury of top corporate officials. I wager that the members of his jury understood little of the issues, or even the words of the expert witnesses. He would have gotten justice with a jury of knowledgable, highly-educated, lay persons, including someone expert in the law.
OJ made out like a bandit (or should I say killer). He got a jury in which most of the members were very anti-police. They were not about to believe anything said by the police. Thus, although there was iron-clad blood, foot-print, motive, clothing, attempted-escape, etc., evidence, he was quickly acquitted. (He was later found liable for the murders in a civil case.)
It's still wrong to say that an ordinary person should be forced to have a jury of the elite.
Quote:Wealthy and sophisticated people seem to find a way out of serving.
No from what I've seen. Most of the people who worked their way out of jury duty with the Judge were laborers.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace