|
The entire advantage of a jury of your peers is a guarantee (in concept) that the decider for your case will be normal members of society-people like you. A group of professional jurors creates the following immediate problems: - Verdicts as an everyday part of the job, rather than a drastic decision one rarely faces in life. Desensitization to the process. - Susceptibility to the same weaknesses our current public attorney system has succumbed to (Sloppy and quick defenses due to pay being on a cases-finished than hourly basis) - Corruption similar to that of our judge system; members who will favor law enforcement and/or wealthy elite over justice. These are just a few flaws off the top of my head. It's an incredibly terrible idea that would require an absurd amount of regulation to make workable, let alone ideal. You'd be better off arguing for the complete removal of the jury system than what you're currently proposing. The problems in our system are a result of public decay and compromised aspects of our legal system unrelated to the jury system.
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
The decision of the jury is that of a moral decision, not a legal one. That's why you need the entire jury to agree, and why jury nullification results in a mistrial that finds the defendant free. No one group of citizens holds an iron-clad expert hold on morality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 22:47
|
|