Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What are your thoughts on the use of professional jurors?
 
  • Locked thread
The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
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
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:09
  • Quote
The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Rodatose posted:

Wat if we kept jurors, but simplified the law code to about 3 pages so every1 could under stand it? no more lawyer's needed, no more washingtown dc bureaucats. checkmate, thread.

Herman Caine's account spotted. Nice try, pizza man.

* # ¿ Oct 31, 2015 11:18
  • Quote
The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

rudatron posted:


Everyone must be accountable to their peers, not 'their betters', no exceptions. If I was charged with a crime, I'd take a jury of dim-but-well-meaning rednecks over a bunch of blowhard law graduates, with an inflated ego on account of their judgment literally being over-valued.
What makes the same random selection of assholes peers to both the richest and most educated amongst us as well as the poorest and most ignorant? Persons from all walks of life are peers, except theoretical professional jurors who would be innately superiors? This logic doesn't currently sit well with me. Having jurors that are not peers except in the vaguest sense of being humans that currently live in the same nation rather than sharing any sense of cultural awareness feels somehow off to me. I'm still working through it and can't put my concerns into a concise framing, and I propose no specific solution (perhaps there is no better system).It's always felt to me like the idea of finding one's peers (in any truly meaningful sense) amongst a jury is a legalistic fiction or an open lie.

The Bloop fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 1, 2015

* # ¿ Nov 1, 2015 19:51
  • Quote
The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

computer parts posted:

Well firstly, it's typically not in "the same nation as you", it's usually the same city as you (since most crimes are prosecuted at the local level). Secondly, there are plenty of examples where shared cultural awareness presents a clear and present bias towards the defendant (you can think of :heritage: for why that might be bad).

Generally true, although it is also true that shopping for jurisdictions based on prosecutorial favorability is a thing, and big cities have many diverse subcultures.

In any case, my issue isn't so much a criticism of the reality of the situation. My issue is that it feels disingenuous to universally label jurors peers of the accused, and then use this as an argument in favor of the system.

* # ¿ Nov 1, 2015 20:26
  • Quote
  • Locked thread
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What are your thoughts on the use of professional jurors?