JURY SYSTEMS

I'm amazed that you have managed to misunderstand the fundamental core of the justice system devised by your species. Each person has the right to be judged by people more or less like himself. Obviously you look down on the ordinary man.

Would you let the dude at the poolroom perform brain surgery on your wife? Why would you let that person judge the facts, and apply the law, in your litigation?

Merry, I did mention an alternative. I said that the Continent's systems would be far superior to our system. I infer that the non-Brit Europeans are delighted with their systems because the judges and jurors are knowledgeable and intelligent.

What have you presented besides baseless assertions? You offer nothing but unsupported speculation regarding how lawyers view juries, and then you complain that my evidence isn't solid? That's rich.


Another baseless assertion.

Joe, while the issue is a judgemental one, I have given links to the writings of experts, covered with details some celebrated cases, etc. I, and Walter, have provided information on jury systems abroad. Thus, my assertions are hardly baseless.

BTW, I am hardly an elitist. I tend to be a lib who is very critical of the establishment. Regarding juries, I think all of us are getting screwed in our system.

Unfortunately, from what I read on this thread, I gather that reform is a hopeless cause.

Jeepers Advocate - anyone can give links here are some
Excerpt from Robert A. Clifford who is the principal partner of Clifford Law Offices, a nationally recognized personal injury law firm in Chicago concentrating in aviation, transportation, personal injury, medical negligence and product liability law. He is Past President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and has been inducted into the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers and the exclusive International Academy of Trial Lawyers. He has been selected to be a part of the National Judicial College, a select assembly of legal and corporate leaders from across the country dedicated to furthering the education and training of judges. Mr. Clifford also serves on the Board of the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, a "think tank" based in California.
As such he qualifies as a subject (similar or better than any source you provide)…
"The jury is meant to represent the community as a whole and when these people feel such outrage, they should be allowed to speak in this way on behalf of the public. More and more jurors are taking the time to consider what is right and wrong and are attempting to set a standard to reflect those attitudes through their deliberations. Assuming that the key actors in a courtroom ?- from the judge and attorneys, to witnesses and jurors ?- can and will understand their tasks and set aside their personal prejudices, the American jury system works and works well. Trial by jury is said to symbolize the importance and respect of individual rights. It is a group of people who apply a measure of equity, fairness and impartiality to the proceedings. This is its political function. But it is an educational function as well. It reflects the current attitudes on certain issues confronting America, setting the standard.
It is these attitudes ?- the attitudes of the American people ?- that should be honored when jurors reflect their sentiments through a verdict, or perhaps even through their mere presence in a courtroom. Above all, pop culture's cynical mistrust of the jury system serves no purpose. Americans fought too hard to establish it. And, rather than destroy it, one should take solace in the fact that all of the slick talk and smooth presentations in the world are never going to hoodwink 12 people. Believing in that mantra always renews my faith in the jury system where, above all, sincerity, competency and professionalism prevail."
http://www.dcba.org/brief/octissue/1999/art11099.htm
http://www.majorcox.com/columns/steele.htm

Therefore my opinion is hardly baseless. And since you can't see others opinions, therefore you must be closed minded. It is strange how every argument you make can be completely reversed to support the other side, but you also tend to avoid those that provide actual facts. You supply only opinions of so-called experts - well there are as many or more that have voiced the opposite. And actually the majority that support jury system do recognize that changes could be made to make it better, however, you on the other hand can only see to do away with it - who is closed minded?

I'm not talking about your assertions regarding juries (although most of those are baseless), I'm talking about your assertions regarding lawyers. You said:

and

You have since said that your claim about malpractice was an "exaggeration." But, in fact, your assertions were nothing but exaggerations. Those statements was offered without the least bit of evidence -- not even anecdotal evidence (which is something that I offered, as much to rebut your assertions as to demonstrate how silly they were). Where is your evidence regarding what "most lawyers will say" or regarding whether it is a disservice to advise a client to have a jury trial?

I don't care to go back to examine posts for weaknesses. But I never said that others would be unable to supply links. There are two sides to this argument.

Link, the lawyer quoted in your post is a prominent trial lawyer who is not about to trash the jury system. He probably became rich twisting lawyers this way or that.

I do feel that the country is somewhat hobbled by the jury system. It is too often a cruel joke on those seeking justice. Moreover, it is unduly ponderous and expensive.

If I were you, I'd feel the same way.


Not if you refuse to participate in the argument.


You didn't quote any lawyer. If you did, you didn't identify or link the source.


And yet more baseless assertions.

Joe, why don't you make an effort to post something intelligent. All I see are cheap shots and silly retorts. An example is your silly analogy involving the right to vote. Wow, that really has a lot to do with our jury system!

Brandon has hit the nail on the head here. Advocates rant in this thread, as was the case in the other thread which he started--and in which i participated in all innocence, believing it would be an ordinary exhchange of ideas--is a basically elitist diatribe. He heaps scorn on the possibility that twelve members of the public could provide the necessary intelligence and judgment to determine a matter of fact (it is untrue as Advocate has stated that juries determine matters of law--they only determine matters of fact). He has not, however, ever responded to my questions regarding the basis upon which he would assert that lawyers and judges should be considered better qualified to make determinations of fact. Does Advocate believe that a concrete finisher does not need to possess judgment and an intelligent understanding of physics and material handling? Does Advocate believe that a small business owner can ever succeed without the ability to make critical judgments about production, staffing, markets and the equations of time and materials, and of economies of scale? Does advocate believe that the doctors he is so fond of referring too are competent and possessed of a particular superior judgment in the matter of neurosurgery, but would be driven into irremediable hebetude at the prospect of judging the value of evidence and witnesses?

Once again, Advocate, upon what basis are you willing to assert that judges and lawyers can be considered more competent to make a reliable judgment of evidence and witnesses to arrive at a finding of fact?

"He has not, however, ever responded to my questions regarding the basis upon which he would assert that lawyers and judges should be considered better qualified to make determinations of fact"

The ironic thing Setanta is that he also condemned a prominent trial lawyer that I quoted, but yet wants to use these types of experts as determining fate for because of their intelligence and knowledge. Again having your cake and eat it too.

Then talks about closed mindedness of those that feel a jury is a better determinant of facts, (these same individuals speaking that it is not perfect/changes could be made to improve), however, his own closed mindedness would not consider a jury system with improvements, but would overhaul to suit his twisted perception of justice.

I am asked for the my reasons for thinking that professional jurors would be superior. I contemplate such a juror to be highly qualified relative to education, experience, and temperament. In our system, you might find this in one or two members of the jury, which is insufficient to bring justice.

In a trial, the judge will give instructions to the jury relative to applying the law in determining guilt or innocence, etc.

Link, I didn't really trash the lawyer in your piece. I questioned his objectivity when he says that our system is great. As I said, he makes his living, which, I wager, is very lucrative, by manipulating the unwashed juries that are prevalent.

I only look down on the ordinary person to the extent I would not want an amateur operating on me, or judging my guilt or innocence, etc. Most of my best friends are ordinary people.

Have any of you actually addressed my arguments, or the arguments in linked pieces I provided? It seems that you would rather attack me personally.

Here is an interesting piece concerning the Supreme Ct. overturning a case in which the prosecution manipulated jury selection to eliminate 10 of 11 potential black jurors. I wager this is relatively common one way or the other.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/21/race_and_the_jury_system/

It's also irrelevant. No one claimed the system is infallible. We claimed that people have the right to be judged by randomly selected people of their own sort.

This is truly hilarious, and ought to be an embarrassingly obvious example of your elitist conceits--but apparently, you lack the ability of introspection. You follow this with a claim that no one has addressed your arguments. Your arguments have been repeatedly addressed, but you choose only to respond with comments such as the above.

It may be unpleasant to have to read "elitist conceit"--but rather than whine about "personal attacks," you might consider the extent to which remarks like "unwashed juries" (got any supporting statistics on the hygiene habits of those called for jury duty?) and "my best friends are ordinary people" (which suggest that you are not--i'll go along with that, your rhetorical style seems substandard to me) glaringly make charges of elitism against you plausible.

Set, are you dense? Once again, you ignore this important issue and, at some length, level a personal attack on me.

Say you are suing in a complex trademark, patent, or copyright case, would you be content in having, say, a beautician, truck driver, personnel supervisor, et al., decide the validity of your claims? This is what is happening and it is a travesty.

I think that you are dense.

You ignore the point which Brandon most recently, and many others have made--that the people want the jury system. Of course, if you view "the people" as the "unwashed" masses, i can see how inimical that would be to your elitist conceit. You ignore the point that there is no reason to assume that any putative "expert" can be expected to more surely judge the value of testimony and evidence. The fact that both prosecution and defense counsel are able to bring expert witnesses into a trial, which "experts" will dispute one another's points of view, ought to be a clue to you that your concept of an expert jury is fatally flawed.

The only travesty here is your constant inferential statement that you are above the "ordinary" people, the "unwashed" masses. You truly cannot see how silly you look here, can you?

I remember the first Menendez trial, in which the two brothers had about $12 -14 M to mount the best defense money could buy. The skilled lawyers, detectives, and experts for them totally fooled half the lay jury into believing that the adult brothers were justified in murdering their wealthy parents because of alleged sexual abuse by the father. The wounded mother was executed when she tried to crawl to safety.

One expert was a psychologist who said that she was a human lie detector, able to detect any spoken lies. Half the jury evidently bought this. A professional jury would have laughed this off.

Murphy's Law revisited:

~ When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Now, that's clever. It's nonsense, but it is clever.