Why is trial by jury a good thing?

[Darth Wong]

It's an article of faith that a trial by jury is the best way to conduct a criminal trial (or even a civil lawsuit in America for some reason). Does anyone know why? Because it seems as if history is replete with examples of fucking idiot juries. OJ Simpson's jury, for example.

[Gandalf]

I guess the idea behind it is that a group of 15 or so people will be less likely to be partial than just one guy.

[Petrosjko]

Loooooooong topic and I'm on my way to bed, but I can give a brief set of thoughts to be thoroughly gnawed on before I go.

First of all, it's a theoretical check on governmental prosecution. Rather than having an arm of the state deciding one's guilt or innocence, a pool of fellow citizens is dragged in to do the job.

Secondly... well, that's about it for the moment, but the reason that juries are idiots is deliberate mangling of the system by lawyers. They look for the most sympathetic idiots in the crowd and the most easily swayed. Lawyers know taking it to jury trial is a crapshoot though- I knew a career public defender who explained some nuances to me once, and the local slang in her area for actual taking a case to jury trial was 'racking them up.' As in a game of pool, and never having any idea which way the balls will bounce.

I know that the only time I made it so far as to get interviewed for jury duty, I got passed over despite what I felt were fair and unbiased remarks, while my two neighbors on my particular bench got selected. Now, this was a DUI. The woman next to me had a relative who'd been killed in a DUI, and started crying at the memory. The guy to the right of me worked at a liquor store and had sold booze to people who had gotten into accidents, and started twitching seriously while answering questions on the topic. So the prosecution obviously did a bit of a better job at stacking the deck on that case.

[Stofsk]

I think it has to do with splitting up the powers a little, so that no one man can be judge, AND jury, AND executioner. From what I recall, a judge can override a jury's verdict can't he? If he thinks that the Jury didn't deliberate the right way? (this was on an episode of the Practice, so I readily concede I don't know this for sure)

Obviously there have been some stunningly stupid juries. Law isn't my strong suit, however.

[Stuart Mackey]

It's an article of faith that a trial by jury is the best way to conduct a criminal trial (or even a civil lawsuit in America for some reason). Does anyone know why? Because it seems as if history is replete with examples of fucking idiot juries. OJ Simpson's jury, for example.

If the case involves highly complicated issues, juries simply may not have the education to make a good judgement. Take from that what you will.
I for one know that for me to sit on a jury trying a case that involves a lot of science would be nuts, I dont have the background or education to do the job properly.

[Darth Wong]

I think it has to do with splitting up the powers a little, so that no one man can be judge, AND jury, AND executioner. From what I recall, a judge can override a jury's verdict can't he? If he thinks that the Jury didn't deliberate the right way? (this was on an episode of the Practice, so I readily concede I don't know this for sure)

Obviously there have been some stunningly stupid juries. Law isn't my strong suit, however.

OK, so why couldn't there be professional juries? People who have to meet certain educational qualifications such as superficial legal training and belong to a self-policing association which can revoke membership for misconduct? People who could also have other areas of specialized knowledge and be selected on that basis for specialized trials?

[Stuart Mackey]

I think it has to do with splitting up the powers a little, so that no one man can be judge, AND jury, AND executioner. From what I recall, a judge can override a jury's verdict can't he? If he thinks that the Jury didn't deliberate the right way? (this was on an episode of the Practice, so I readily concede I don't know this for sure)

Obviously there have been some stunningly stupid juries. Law isn't my strong suit, however.

OK, so why couldn't there be professional juries? People who have to meet certain educational qualifications such as superficial legal training and belong to a self-policing association which can revoke membership for misconduct? People who could also have other areas of specialized knowledge and be selected on that basis for specialized trials?

I dont think you would need a society of professional jurors so much as a stricter application of the concept of 'jury of your peers' If an engineer, for arguments sakem was on trial for negligence in building a bridge, have his jury composed of engineers?

[Stuart Mackey]

Actually, Stravo is a lwayer, I wonder if his input here would be helpfull?

[Stofsk]

OK, so why couldn't there be professional juries?

A damn good question, and if you can have professional lawyers and Judges, why not juries as well?

[egyptfrk]

I think it has to do with splitting up the powers a little, so that no one man can be judge, AND jury, AND executioner. From what I recall, a judge can override a jury's verdict can't he? If he thinks that the Jury didn't deliberate the right way? (this was on an episode of the Practice, so I readily concede I don't know this for sure)

Obviously there have been some stunningly stupid juries. Law isn't my strong suit, however.

OK, so why couldn't there be professional juries? People who have to meet certain educational qualifications such as superficial legal training and belong to a self-policing association which can revoke membership for misconduct? People who could also have other areas of specialized knowledge and be selected on that basis for specialized trials?

Good idea... but too expensive to implement because it would be changing the structure of government.

Sadly I will most likely never serve on a jury because I am a Pre-Law student and the last thing any attorney wants is for a juror to be able to bias his/her fellow jurors with their legal knowledge. Not to mention to be a successful litigator you have to be a good debator, thus the lawyer could likely easily sway jurors to his/her views on the trial.

But the whole jury by your peers is part of old English Common Law, which actually if you really want to get technical stems waaaaaaaaay back to Rome. Granted, they had professional jurists, but that was the start of the jury concept. Jury of your peers came about as a way to curb abuses of power by the King or state (depending on the time period). And its now a wonderful part of your civic duties as a citizen/registered voter/whatever your states juror requirements are.

I could go on further, but its definately waaaaaaaay past my bedtime.

[DPDarkPrimus]

OK, so why couldn't there be professional juries?

A damn good question, and if you can have professional lawyers and Judges, why not juries as well?

A rather obvious answer, of course. Lawyers would start hiring favored jurors, based on how they've ruled on previous trials. You start forming lists of people who will convict and those who will not.

[Stuart Mackey]

OK, so why couldn't there be professional juries?

A damn good question, and if you can have professional lawyers and Judges, why not juries as well?

A rather obvious answer, of course. Lawyers would start hiring favored jurors, based on how they've ruled on previous trials. You start forming lists of people who will convict and those who will not.

That reminds me of a John Grisham novel

[Stofsk]

Sadly I will most likely never serve on a jury because I am a Pre-Law student and the last thing any attorney wants is for a juror to be able to bias his/her fellow jurors with their legal knowledge.

When you feel that you can never be on a Jury because of your legal knowledge, it's time to re-evaluate the justice system.

[Master of Ossus]

It's not, really. The idea is that you give your peers a voice in the judicial system, so that society itself can have a hand in judging people who have wronged it. However, since jurors are almost invariably the dregs of society (they ACTIVELY PREVENT educated people from serving on juries, as well as having natural selective processes which keep them away), you get cases that pander to the lowest common denominator. And remember: a criminal only needs one retard in the courtroom to get let off.

[Dalton]

I know that the only time I made it so far as to get interviewed for jury duty, I got passed over despite what I felt were fair and unbiased remarks, while my two neighbors on my particular bench got selected. Now, this was a DUI. The woman next to me had a relative who'd been killed in a DUI, and started crying at the memory. The guy to the right of me worked at a liquor store and had sold booze to people who had gotten into accidents, and started twitching seriously while answering questions on the topic. So the prosecution obviously did a bit of a better job at stacking the deck on that case.

When I went for jury duty both attorneys were in the room at the time, and both had to agree on a potential juror before they were selected, so that sort of shit didn't happen.

[Darth Wong]

Good idea... but too expensive to implement because it would be changing the structure of government.

How much would it cost? I can't imagine it would be that expensive.

Granted, they had professional jurists, but that was the start of the jury concept. Jury of your peers came about as a way to curb abuses of power by the King or state (depending on the time period). And its now a wonderful part of your civic duties as a citizen/registered voter/whatever your states juror requirements are.

That's very interesting (that juries were originally professionals), but I'd say that people have found lots of ways of prejudicing jury selection since then, so the continuing rationale for using a jury of your peers is suspect.

A rather obvious answer, of course. Lawyers would start hiring favored jurors, based on how they've ruled on previous trials. You start forming lists of people who will convict and those who will not.

Jurors who developed a record of prejudicial behaviour would be sanctioned by the self-policing association, and I don't see why lawyers should have any say over the jury selection at all; it should be random, provided people meet the qualifications. It seems to me that such a system would do a better job of weeding out idiots than the current system.

[Stofsk]

A rather obvious answer, of course. Lawyers would start hiring favored jurors, based on how they've ruled on previous trials. You start forming lists of people who will convict and those who will not.

A PROFESSIONAL Jury would have ethical standards to look up to, something which a common Jury would not. Or haven't you seen the movie "Runaway Jury" which had Gene Hackman play the nasty bad guy, who buys Juries and sells them to the defence counsel?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Sadly I will most likely never serve on a jury because I am a Pre-Law student and the last thing any attorney wants is for a juror to be able to bias his/her fellow jurors with their legal knowledge.

When you feel that you can never be on a Jury because of your legal knowledge, it's time to re-evaluate the justice system.

Supposedly because they want to you focus on the facts, not the legality.

Anyways, simply being a pre-law student isn't enough for it. Trust me, my own law teacher went over his own jury story... he really had almost gotten jury duty, dispite being a lawyer (more like clerk, but whatever) for a firm.

[Dalton]

You know, maybe one of the requirements for serving on a jury should be a college education. Or at least a high school degree.

[Sea Skimmer]

Stupid as a jury might be, they're only fucking up a single ruling. If you start relying on a much smaller group or panel, you're potentially giving them an immense amount of life fucking up power.

[Master of Ossus]

Stupid as a jury might be, they're only fucking up a single ruling. If you start relying on a much smaller group or panel, you're potentially giving them an immense amount of life fucking up power.

Other countries that have panels of judges hand out rulings seem to be doing okay with them--most notably the way that the English judicial system is set up.

[Lord Poe]

An old saying I recall is, if you're innocent, go for a trial by judge. If you're guilty, go for a trial by jury.

[Lusankya]

In Australia, I think, the barristers can dismiss seven jurors without stating a reason, but otherwise they have to provide a reason for sacking the juror. That way (since the initial selection is assumed to be random) you can't infinitely pass over jurors that you think would favour the other side.

[2000AD]

Isn't trial by lawyer a lot worse than trial by fire, etc.?

[White Haven]

I propose some guy with a whiffle-ball bat stands in the room when the lawyers are picking jurists, and if one is ejected for a silly reason, he reaches over, pops the lawyers a few times on the skull, and tells the jurist to sit the hell back down.