It is big news when a judge so acts. But it is all too common when a jury goes crazy.
The example of jury craziness that I cited is an example of the what is almost the norm in DC. You have no way of saying that your jury typified most others.
BTW, people here have cited the value of preemptory challenges. The funny thing is that they are one of the biggest faults in the jury system. They tend to eliminate the most able potential jurors. A lawyer with a bad case is certainly going to eliminate someone who is intelligent and knowledgable in favor of someone who, say, is aged and unread. Some legal experts have called for the elimination of these challenges.
Joe, indeed, I was exaggerating about the malpractice thing. However, your client who was needlessly sent down the river may come looking for you someday.
Advocate, please give other examples other than DC. As I stated before it is a demographic abnormality. Kind of ironic how you keep stating using one's personal juror expense cannot say it is typified by most others while you only cite one example yourself and only in DC. How does this typify most others. DC has extreme demographics so even if what you say is true of DC, it is not representative of the rest of the country. Take a look at Utah and you almost get the opposite in demographics. I wouldn't use Utah as anything to typify either.
Yes, but the conversely the prosecution would want the opposite, thus you end up in the middle of the road, therefore, in most cases (not all of course) you end up with a blend of people with different types of knowledge, intelligence and experience and typically lowering the opportunity for biased.
This is at least the second time that this joker has started an anti-jury thread, trotted out his anecdotal evidence while sneering at anyone else for providing anecdotal evidence. I'd say, don't waste any more of your time.
Oh it is simply a mild diversion. I can tell by way things are written and arguments made that this is some one who simply likes to argue without any real support. I also suspect by certain tones and again the way some things are written that this is a some what young person with little experiences in life.
I don't mind some one with a difference of opinion, and respect differences of opinion, however, you cannot have your cake and eat it too in a sense. And I enjoy pointing it out.
Set, instead of the ad hominanian attack, you might address the issues, if you can. Otherwise, you are welcome to stay away. I think we are having an intelligent, worthwhile discussion of the matter.
I did post this topic before because it is a pet peeve of mine. I am always amazed that others don't see the need for major surgery.
Link, I have supported everything I said. Moreover, if you look at the matter with an open mind, you might learn something.
With too many things, if something has been around for a long time, it must be retained despite obsolescence.
Here is a good discussion of some problems with juries. It particularly focuses in on jury selection and the ability to dodge jury service.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040220.html
Advocate wrote:Joe, indeed, I was exaggerating about the malpractice thing. However, your client who was needlessly sent down the river may come looking for you someday.
I repeat: you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Joe, thanks for the baseless assertion. I haven't seen where you have factually or otherwise refuted anything I said.
A so-called jury of your peers sounds very nice and democratic; unfortunately, it doesn't work very well and often doesn't provide justice.
Advocate wrote:Joe, thanks for the baseless assertion. I haven't seen where you have factually or otherwise refuted anything I said.
A so-called jury of your peers sounds very nice and democratic; unfortunately, it doesn't work very well and often doesn't provide justice.
Neither does voting always select the best candidate. The point is that the candidate must reflect the will of the people, be he a good choice or a bad one. Similarly, every individual has a right to be judged by his peers, and not some aristocrats, or intelligentsia, or some professional voters who would be very susceptible to being in cahoots with the system they serve. You have managed to misunderstand the fundamental basis of the rights of Man as worked out correctly by our ancestors.
Something that JFK said might apply to the "jury of your peers" concept.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and realistic.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1917 - 1963
Our present system really made sense in the Middle Ages when the intelligentsia consisted of just aristocrats and representatives of the crown. The ordinary worker or peasant would have little chance with them judging the matter. This is not the situation now.
When I go to a medical specialist, I want someone who is very intelligent and experienced. Should I want to litigate a matter, I want the judges and jurors to be intelligent and experienced. Our present system doesn't begin to provide this with respect to juries.
Advocate wrote:Something that JFK said might apply to the "jury of your peers" concept.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and realistic.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1917 - 1963
Our present system really made sense in the Middle Ages when the intelligentsia consisted of just aristocrats and representatives of the crown. The ordinary worker or peasant would have little chance with them judging the matter. This is not the situation now.
When I go to a medical specialist, I want someone who is very intelligent and experienced. Should I want to litigate a matter, I want the judges and jurors to be intelligent and experienced. Our present system doesn't begin to provide this with respect to juries.
If I were to be judged for a crime, either one I committed or one I was innocent of, I would much rather be judged by ordinary citizens. You're an elitist.
Brandon, can you explain why you would prefer a jury [allegedly] of your peers?
BTW, I am a realist, not an elitist. The jury system is not coping well with the complexities of the 21st century. Moreover, it is costly, inefficient, and disruptive.
It seems that this is one of those etremely rare times when both the right and left wingers of this site are in mutual agreement.
Advocate wrote:Brandon, can you explain why you would prefer a jury [allegedly] of your peers?
BTW, I am a realist, not an elitist. The jury system is not coping well with the complexities of the 21st century. Moreover, it is costly, inefficient, and disruptive.
And here I thought you were going to be the first elitist to admit it.
Merry, I think that I am the only lib here.
Advocate wrote:Merry, I think that I am the only lib here.
I wouldn't call either Setanta or Joefromchicago -- or myself -- exactly a neocon.
I may be wrong, but you guys seem much closer to being neocons than libs. In any event, I can't help thinking that you have closed minds. I am amazed at your resistance to the overwhelming evidence of the failure of our jury system.
Advocate wrote:I may be wrong, but you guys seem much closer to being neocons than libs. In any event, I can't help thinking that you have closed minds. I am amazed at your resistance to the overwhelming evidence of the failure of our jury system.
We can talk about the failure of the jury system. We can talk about the failure of what we are pleased to call 'democracy.' In the absence of a better alternative, such talk is just after-dinner conversation.
