Why is trial by jury a good thing?

[UCBooties]

Fair points that sound very good as an idea, but I don't think it can be implemented. Besides, it boils down to justice by beuracracy, I'd rather have the idiots decide.

[Darth Wong]

Fair points that sound very good as an idea, but I don't think it can be implemented.

Of course not, because people are resistant to change.

Besides, it boils down to justice by beuracracy, I'd rather have the idiots decide.

How is a jury of 12 pre-qualified professionals worse than a jury of 12 idiots? Are you suggesting that any level of organization is necessarily worse than the present system? Doctors and engineers seem to function just fine with a self-policing association; it's a question of how seriously this function is taken in society.

[Perinquus]

No, that was an exageration in the Dave Chapelle skit. The peers of a gangsta would come from his community. So you could have a hard working single mom, a Pakistani who owns a grocery store, etc. They all come from his community thus creating the extra layer of legitimacy of the verdict in that he was no judged by a bunch of WASPs from Westchester or a bunch of stock broker yuppies (though one could be on the jury.) It's all about skewing the percentages to get as widely diversified jury as possible that best reflects the values of the community.

What do "the values of the community" have to do with the question of whether he's guilty of committing a crime? I might see that factoring into sentencing, but it really has nothing to do with the question of whether a crime was committed.

A professional jury could be seen as outsiders, especially considering their proposed make up as educated people.

Why should legal rulings depend on local sentiment?

The jury system also engages the community as a whole, making them feel like part of the process and giving them a say in the legal system.

Again, why should legal rulings be based on local political sensitivity concerns?

I agree that whether or not you are from the defendant's community shouldn't have any bearing. He's guilty or he's not. Period. And anyone with sense ought to be able to evaluate the evidence and determine whether or not he's guilty, regardless of their background. The unfortunate reality, however, is that human beings are fallible, and often ruled by emotion, and the jury system is an attempt to eliminate, or at least control human bias as far as possible. I think the rationale is that you are far less likely to get the wool pulled over twelve people's eyes than you are over one, and that you are, in general, less likely to get prejudice or bias affecting the decision when twelve people have to reach the decision than one or two or three. Note the key words "less likely". That doesn't mean it's impossible. The O.J. trial is a sterling example of how the system can fail. Is there really any doubt (among people with sense, and who have no axe to grind) that O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder?

Unfortunately, no system is perfect. I can't think of one that works conspicuously better than the jury system. Perhaps the system in force on the continent of Europe works as well, but is it really better? I'm not so sure.

[UCBooties]

Fair points that sound very good as an idea, but I don't think it can be implemented.

Of course not, because people are resistant to change.

Besides, it boils down to justice by beuracracy, I'd rather have the idiots decide.

How is a jury of 12 pre-qualified professionals worse than a jury of 12 idiots? Are you suggesting that any level of organization is necessarily worse than the present system? Doctors and engineers seem to function just fine with a self-policing association; it's a question of how seriously this function is taken in society.

Yes but Doctors and Engineers are engaged in scientific, not public disciplines.A beuracracy which deals in matters of justice can not be self policing. It is in the best interest of doctors and engineers to police themselves well so that their work can be more efficient and their results will be acceptable for public use. They are immediatly responsible for failures. A beuracracies best interest lies in keeping change to a minimum. If we institute a professional jury system we would need another organization to determine which jurors were qualified and to determine which juries will be free of bias for cases. It would be better to institute better standards in the current jury selection process, then to make the switch to professional juries. How can we even determine if the neccisary number of qualified participants who want to make a career out of such an occupation exist? I maintain that such a change would be to expensive and unwieldy to commit. Leaving aside questions of preference or whether people want to change, I am unconvinced that any corps of professional jurries would be able to recruit enough qualified people to man every courthouse in America, every day. If not, we face a drastic slowdown in the already bogged legal system. The benefit of the current system is that it is temporary conscription. You are called, selected, do your work, are compensated, you go back to your regular career. How many thousands of people would need to be willing to make an immidiate career change in order to impliment such a system? Professional juries would solve the qualification issue, but can not be feasibly implimented. There must be another way to work within the current legal system to ensure that jurries are capable of making informed and reasoned decisions on behalf of the society.

[Darth Wong]

Yes but Doctors and Engineers are engaged in scientific, not public disciplines.

Incorrect. Both deal directly with the public, and the public welfare must be their highest concern. Neither a doctor or an engineer is a scientist, which is why we require codes of ethics and self-policing associations while scientists don't.

If this organization failed to adequately police itself, public trust in the system would erode and the organization would either be discarded or overhauled. That is how the engineering associations work.

A beuracracy which deals in matters of justice can not be self policing.

Why not? All you have to do is create an incentive: survival in this case. The association's entire reason to exist will be voided if they cannot maintain the quality of their juries, and they would probably be either dissolved or removed in favour of government oversight.

It is in the best interest of doctors and engineers to police themselves well so that their work can be more efficient and their results will be acceptable for public use. They are immediatly responsible for failures. A beuracracies best interest lies in keeping change to a minimum.

No, every bureaucracy has a different self-interest. Some are out to maximize the profits of their parent corporations, others (such as the engineering associations) are out to ensure the continued health of their profession by maintaining high levels of public trust in the institution and its professionals. You are generalizing based on axiomatic statements that are simply not true.

The benefit of the current system is that it is temporary conscription.

Thanks for that analogy; it is important to note that a professional army will generally kick the ass of a conscripted one.

Professional juries would solve the qualification issue, but can not be feasibly implimented.

A changeover period would work just fine, if people weren't reactionary about the idea. Simply use the current system when a professional jury is unavailable, until the ranks gradually swell to the point that the fallback is rarely used.

There must be another way to work within the current legal system to ensure that jurries are capable of making informed and reasoned decisions on behalf of the society.

Nope. Not without major changes to that system, which you have already decried as infeasible. Until then, you're stuck with a jury by 12 of the biggest idiots they can find.

[Bugsby]

The biggest problem I see with Wong's case is that he calls for a self-policing body. No such thing, especially with something as important as juries. You make the assumption that everyone in this body would be above corruption and bribery. I'll tell you what would happen if such a self-policing board of jurors were formed. First, they would not be able to police effectively. The amount of court cases coming up next year would make for a huge body of jurors, and not all of them could be effectively policed. And second, even if it were possible for this group to keep tabs on the activities and biases of all its members, the system would still be open to corruption. The National Panel of Jurors would get lobbied. We bitch daily on this forum about how special interests have ruined the government. Now imagine that same process applied to trials. In the event of someone sueing big tobacco or McDonalds or some other huge corporation again, you can be sure that these corporations who seem themselves as being at risk will pour millions of dollars into the Panel to make sure that no ruling ever turns against them. This is inevitable.

There has to be some consequence of bias imposed by some outside source or else the organization will be able to do whatever it wants. But even if there is this outside check to be placed, then who will check the cheker? And so on, and so forth. That is why the current jury system is good: it IS random. Yes, the jury selection process makes it much less random, but up until the jury is called, the pool of potential jurors is EVERYONE, which is a lot harder group to lobby against effectively. Making a group who will permanently have the power to decide something as vital as court cases is setting up a group as a target for corruption. And to some extent, probably a large one, the corruption will set in. There is no real solution to the jury problem, and despite the hitches that about in the system, any other system can be just as flawed as long as human nature remains flawed.

That is why we should invent a hacker-proof, infallible justice-robot, that will sample all the evidence and spit out a verdict and an acceptable sentence after twenty seconds of computing.

That would be sweet.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The biggest problem I see with Wong's case is that he calls for a self-policing body. No such thing, especially with something as important as juries.

Except as he's said, the professions of physicians and engineers have them.