|
http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/should_we_have.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/professional-jurors-has-t_b_867839.html On one hand, being judged by a jury of one's peers is thought of as a cornerstone of American democracy. On the other, I'd like to think I have a pretty good head on my shoulders, and I'm not sure I'd be qualified to decide whether someone should spend the rest of their lives in prison after being given some brief instructions by a man in a robe.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
It stands directly in opposition to liberalism and leftism, with its cult of the expert. Just say "no".
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
I'm on a jury right now. I sure as gently caress wouldn't want any of these fuckers making decisions that affect me like that, myself included. I can't ignore the average statistics of any given district attorney's office. I can't ignore the very nice clothing on the two defense lawyers on a misdemeanor case. I can't ignore that the defendant looks like a loving creep. Juror #6s breath smells like poo poo. Not bad, like literal poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
I feel like a group of judges would perhaps be better. They are experts in the law, after all. If a large group of judges is good enough for the highest court in the land which may eventually adjudicate every case anyway, successively smaller groups of judges down to three for lesser courts seems appropriate. I'm not sure if jury nullification and excessive punitive awards are really a feature of our current system rather than a bug we've grown accustomed to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Trent posted:I feel like a group of judges would perhaps be better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
I think I'd rather see a voluntary jury system, one that compensates you or provides some other incentives for serving the full time required. Why would you ever want to be judged by a jury of your peers that don't even want to be there and aren't paying attention and just want to get out as fast as possible because they feel they're stuck there for some bullshit reason?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:I think I'd rather see a voluntary jury system, one that compensates you or provides some other incentives for serving the full time required. Why would you ever want to be judged by a jury of your peers that don't even want to be there and aren't paying attention and just want to get out as fast as possible because they feel they're stuck there for some bullshit reason? Couldn't volunteer juries lead to an increase in jury nullification? People might become jurors in order to thwart the enforcement of laws they didn't like. Edit: One point the article makes that hasn't been discussed in this thread much is that juries (particularly in complex civil cases) don't have sufficient familiarity with the law to apply a judge's instructions. Abolishing juries (or requiring jurors to be lawyers, which amounts to much the same thing; you're replacing jurors with extra judges) in civil cases isn't the only solution to this, though; the article suggests allowing juries to take notes on the judge's instructions, for example. Edit 2: I am deeply skeptical of the value of juries in civil cases, and even in criminal ones to an extent. I don't see the Seventh Amendment, let alone the Sixth, being repealed any time soon, though. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Why not skip ahead to abolishing the jury altogether and make it a tribunal of multiple judges? I mean, the whole idea of leaving the admissibility of evidence to a single judge is pretty absurd too, right? If they're all judges, they'll all have the training to determine for themselves what evidence is legally admissible. My sincere answer is that we should push to reform other more seriously flawed elements of the judicial system first. Prosecutors and judges who are incompetent or act in bad faith need to be held accountable. I'm not comfortable with handing even more power to the elites when they aren't even responsible with the power they already have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Its just as subject to regulatory capture as any other system, like arbitration or the way things are now, if not more so depending on requirements for jurors. They just need to make a perfect lie detector test already because most of our systems suck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Just absolutely no. Can you imagine the kind of person who would go in for that kind of job? For the power of sitting in judgement over fellow citizens? Heeeeeeeell no. Judges are bad enough. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers is the only realistic check against the utter corruption of justice that I know of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It stands directly in opposition to liberalism and leftism, with its cult of the expert. Just say "no". There are plenty of countries that both are more democratic and less obsessed with the concept of a jury than the US. In fact, juries stand in direct opposition to the reality that the average citizen is completely and utterly poo poo at making legal decisions and increase injustice for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:30
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:There are plenty of countries that both are more democratic and less obsessed with the concept of a jury than the US. Stupidity is less scary than corruption when it comes down to life and death. Having a political class that has sole right of judgement and can execute people or lock them up for life is practically asking for de facto plutocracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
National Service. Young people must give 2 years to the government, an option of which is to be a professional juror. Fill the jury rolls with the innocent and idealistic, those who haven't been corrupted yet. Plus its a great head start on a profession in law/government!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:National Service. Young people must give 2 years to the government, an option of which is to be a professional juror. Fill the jury rolls with the innocent and idealistic, those who haven't been corrupted yet. Plus its a great head start on a profession in law/government! I'd be alright with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:There are plenty of countries that both are more democratic and less obsessed with the concept of a jury than the US. Juries don't exist to rule on law, they exist to rule on whether or not the state has provided enough evidence to convict someone. We have judges to make decisions on law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Stupidity is less scary than corruption when it comes down to life and death. Having a political class that has sole right of judgement and can execute people or lock them up for life is practically asking for de facto plutocracy. And yet, most of Europe uses juries in much fewer cases if at all while being less of a plutocracy than the US. Amused to Death posted:Juries don't exist to rule on law, they exist to rule on whether or not the state has provided enough evidence to convict someone. We have judges to make decisions on law. The average citizen is also unqualified to evaluate much of the evidence used in court. See e.g.: CSI effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:National Service. Young people must give 2 years to the government, an option of which is to be a professional juror. Fill the jury rolls with the innocent and idealistic, those who haven't been corrupted yet. Plus its a great head start on a profession in law/government! I like it. It allows for better legally educated jurors without providing an indefinite Judgedreddship. It also balances the inherent traditionalism of a legal code with the more progressive minds of younger generations. Through the same mechanism, it instills the sense of the right and responsiblity of citizens to be the ultimate arbiters of justice, as the jury system attempts to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Hmmm. What about making juries bigger by a factor of a few, and slightly relaxing unanimity requirements for most types of cases? Kind of eliminates the intra-jury arguments meant to convince other members, but maybe it also could wash out some of the effect of having one or two jurors that you wouldn't want ordering your lunch, much less deciding your fate. Basically the problem we're trying to address here is that lots of people are dumb as a brick -- so how do you get around that while retaining the concept of a jury of peers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
If you think about it, "professional" jurors would be people that have a day job in the court, and I'm sure it'd be much easier to corrupt them with a district attorney that could easily build rapport with them. What's the checks and balance to say they're just? What's a fireable offense? How do you rate performance on the job? These are important questions to that, which I don't think there are good answers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
blowfish posted:And yet, most of Europe uses juries in much fewer cases if at all while being less of a plutocracy than the US. I see that as being a dangerous risk. It might not be going super bad for them right now, but it's a weakness that can end up really biting you in the rear end, as I think history shows. What if nationalists or some group like the nazis decided to start stacking the judgehoods? Surely there are barriers to things like that, but we already have enough problems with super entrenched politicians without also making the same kind of positions literal arbiters of justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd be alright with that. Seriously? The idea of a volunteer jury is one of the worst things I have head in a long time. Like someone else said imagine the selection bias that would result. Basically imagine the sort of person that likes the tipping system because of the power it gives the person over the server-those are the sorts of people that would choose the juror path. It would be an rear end in a top hat magnet. Also requiring civil service is a terrible idea in general, there's no need our justification for it at all. The jury system isn't perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than the suggestions in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If you think about it, "professional" jurors would be people that have a day job in the court, and I'm sure it'd be much easier to corrupt them with a district attorney that could easily build rapport with them. Thats why you cycle half of them out every year as the young 'uns finish their service. Plus they'll be watched closely during their two years, since they're under government purview like the soldiers, urban reclamation groups, future engineer corps, etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Well, what are some examples of countries that don't do jury trials? How does that work out for them, compared to us?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
tsa posted:Seriously? The idea of a volunteer jury is one of the worst things I have head in a long time. Like someone else said imagine the selection bias that would result. Basically imagine the sort of person that likes the tipping system because of the power it gives the person over the server-those are the sorts of people that would choose the juror path. It would be an rear end in a top hat magnet. I can see several ways around the selection bias issue. Don't make it a choice but rather a random selection with an opt out, for example. I disagree about there being no justification for national service. It increases engagement with and a sense of partnership with one's government, among other benefits. I can understand an ideological indisposition to the idea though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:Well, what are some examples of countries that don't do jury trials? How does that work out for them, compared to us? Germany, aka Galt's Gulch irl.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
tsa posted:Seriously? The idea of a volunteer jury is one of the worst things I have head in a long time. Like someone else said imagine the selection bias that would result. Basically imagine the sort of person that likes the tipping system because of the power it gives the person over the server-those are the sorts of people that would choose the juror path. It would be an rear end in a top hat magnet. As opposed to the current legal and governmental practice which is presumably not crewed by assholes? People are assholes, being paid properly for your time and it being your literal job at least may help reduce the general antipathy of jurors towards defendants. And regular exposure to the legal system may help people understand its flaws. Further, participation in the civil service would be a good thing for anybody to do at a young age because again, it's something that governs a lot of your life, and you will be on the receiving end of it eventually, so you should understand some manner of how it functions. A randomization of injustice doesn't produce justice, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:National Service. Young people must give 2 years to the government, an option of which is to be a professional juror. Fill the jury rolls with the innocent and idealistic, those who haven't been corrupted yet. Plus its a great head start on a profession in law/government! I would have been much more likely to swallow the state's bullshit at 20 than I am now at 30, and I think there's plenty of other young, "idealistic" people who would be more willing to trust the cops because they "haven't been corrupted yet."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Look at how rabidly authoritarian the criminal justice system is right now, especially the prosecutors. I can't imagine the professional juries would be anything other than an extension of those attitudes. I'll take incompetent, uninformed people over people who think their duty is to send as many people to prison as humanly possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Look at how rabidly authoritarian the criminal justice system is right now, especially the prosecutors. I can't imagine the professional juries would be anything other than an extension of those attitudes. I'll take incompetent, uninformed people over people who think their duty is to send as many people to prison as humanly possible. What makes you think those are exclusive groups? Punitive justice enjoys a great deal of popular support.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
It's funny- one of the biggest complaints in the police thread is that people (correctly) identify the relationship between prosecutor and police as a major issue that creates an unfair system. A professional jury would extend that issue to the jurors themselves. Bribery would become a hell of a lot easier- it's much easier to bribe over a long period of time while the juror/prosecutor form a work relationship. It's much easier to hide the bribes, and so on. Or what if you require juror school- who controls the curriculum and what sort of jurors would that produce? To expand upon the idea of selection bias- this is a term used in statistics that gets a problem where your sample becomes homogeneous and non-representative. A homogeneous sample is exactly what you don't want when it comes to juries- a random sample is much more likely to produce fair results than one which is self-selected. At least with a random sample of 10 people you are much more likely to get some that are smart, some that are against tough-on-crime policies and so on. It makes the prosecutors job significantly harder: all the defense lawyer needs to do is convince one person, a prosecutor needs to convince all 10. Which type of jury makes it a lot easier to convince everyone the same thing? A self selecting homogeneous jury. If you are looking to fix the system, the way to go is to ensure a more heterogeneous jury- so make it much harder for people to get around serving. Make it much harder for companies to punish employees for serving. Make sure the compensation is adequate so that serving is not a financial burden and poor people can serve. Do literally anything other than making it a professional job, there are few ideas worst than that. OwlFancier posted:As opposed to the current legal and governmental practice which is presumably not crewed by assholes? Completely and totally wrong, sorry. Think for a second. Why is it so hard to get the prosecutor to try a cop? Extend that idea to the whole jury. OwlFancier posted:What makes you think those are exclusive groups? Punitive justice enjoys a great deal of popular support. Exactly, you are much more likely to find one person who disagrees with punitive justice in a random sample of 10 than a self selected sample of 10. tsa fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Care to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
What is there to elaborate? I cannot think of an easier way to make juries more tough-on-crime than making it a literal job that attracts exactly those sorts of people. Why on earth would intelligent, thoughtful people choose that line of work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
I don't know, what makes people become junior doctors? Same power over others, social status, high paying, yet generally committed to patient welfare even if they really don't deserve it. Figure that out and use it to get jurors. I don't understand it for a minute but a significant part of society functions on the basis that most medical professionals give a drat about their patients. Failing that I believe the suggestion was for it to be something everyone does, possibly with the option of random sampling and opt-out? So it isn't entirely elective and you can't do it just because you want to. It doesn't guarantee you more benevolent jurors but it does mean that the people doing jury service aren't having time and money pulled out of their normal lives to do it, and it gets people properly engaged with the civil service. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
I'd really like to get a defense attorney's perspective on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Germany, aka Galt's Gulch irl. Coincidentally, Germany also has something not too dissimilar from what the OP suggested. Essentially there are lay-judges, called Schöffen, that may be elected or appointed from among the civilian population who serve in an advisory position to the professional judge(s). As far as I know they're not hugely common though, and somewhat limited in the spectrum of cases they may work on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Good point, OP. Once we admit that human beings are basically balls of impulse and bias that cannot be trusted to make rational decisions about complex issues, I think there is a lot we can improve. We could probably extend this idea of creating a professional caste with the power to decide the correct outcome to all sorts of personal and political rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Are there term limits on judges and prosecutors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
tsa posted:Completely and totally wrong, sorry. Think for a second. Why is it so hard to get the prosecutor to try a cop? Extend that idea to the whole jury.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:We could probably extend this idea of creating a professional caste with the power to decide the correct outcome to all sorts of personal and political rights. As long as I agree with their politcal views, I'm sure nothing will ever go wrong!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What makes you think those are exclusive groups? Punitive justice enjoys a great deal of popular support. It does enjoy a great deal of popular support but not the seemingly unanimous, unquestioning support it has in the law enforcement community. At least most average people think prison time for marijuana or copying medical journal articles is silly. Note how the law enforcement community is basically the only major institution left that opposes any sort of criminal justice reform or scaling back of the drug war. They are the last people I would trust to determine my innocence or guilt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:15
|
|