The validity of Juries in Trials

[Zed]

There've been some speculations on this thread about what would happen if jury verdicts had to be motivated - it's probably possible to determine that empirically, as jury verdicts have to be motivated in all states that accept the juridiction of the European Court of Human Rights. The State of Belgium has been condemned precisely for not having motivated decisions by juries, and a number of verdicts have been nullified due to that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Namely the fact that judges in the US are elected officials, and thus simultaneously are at the mercy of not only the government but the people as well.

I'm only really familiar with the US Supreme Court, but in that case isn't this basically totally untrue? Supreme Court justices are selected by the President, and then confirmed by the Senate ... at which point they're tenured. At that point, they're not actually at the will of the people: it's basically the biggest argument against judicial review as set down by Marshall CJ in Marbury v Madison.

That only applies to the Supreme court. At all posts below Supreme Court judges are varying flavors of elected officials and/or appointed by elected officials without a lifetime seat, in a patchwork system varying by level and locality.

[Thanas]

The discovered results are the same. Given that jury decisions are not public and therefore not able of being rationally reviewed (unlike every case in the German system)....I really do not see your point about the results.

I mean, don't you see the huge transparency issue here?

Defense attorneys and prosecutors can interview jurors after they hand down a conviction. Prosecutors can interview jurors after an acquittal, but jurors are under no obligation to answer them. On top of that, most jurors can't wait to spill their guts about the case once they're released. Transparency is not a problem.

Yeah, it is, because you still do not know what happened. People can bleat to the press what they won't, doesn't make it true. And really, all you have so far is voluntary hearsay. No evidence, no transcript, nothing....

[Stofsk]

Yes. Ask Stofsk.

Because Stofsk has absolutely no reason to harbor irrational contempt for the system at all... oh, sorry, I was being sarcastic.

Your sarcasm aside, I don't harbour any irrational contempt for the system at all. I'd like to think I have ample rational reasons why I think the jury system as-is is suboptimal, and my views don't include contempt for juries or jurors. The fact is that the people selected for jury duty are blameless in their role, if not their decisions (and if blame must be apportioned, it should reside first with the police and prosecutor, and then with the presiding judge, maybe the defence barrister if he or she did a poor job, and finally with the jury - who are the least qualified people in the room when compared to all the big wigs, who should know better than them about the law). No-one in a jury asks to be there, and the ones that are can't think of a good enough reason to be excluded. I can only imagine how potentially awful and stressful a role it can be for people who are asked to pass judgement on another human being for a crime they may or may not have committed.

[Elfdart]

Namely the fact that judges in the US are elected officials, and thus simultaneously are at the mercy of not only the government but the people as well.

I'm only really familiar with the US Supreme Court, but in that case isn't this basically totally untrue? Supreme Court justices are selected by the President, and then confirmed by the Senate ... at which point they're tenured. At that point, they're not actually at the will of the people: it's basically the biggest argument against judicial review as set down by Marshall CJ in Marbury v Madison.

Federal judges (like those on the Supreme Court) are appointed, and so are federal prosecutors. Depending on the state, state judges and prosecutors are elected -typically in states with the worst justice systems (like Texas).

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you're a walking, talking genital wart.

And you are a pretentions shit-licking troll with delusions of grandeur.

Defendants were acquitted in seven percent of the death penalty cases that were sent back for re-trial, you fucking moron.

Ah, I misread the sentence somehow. Mae culpa. Additionally, I mistook the math (again, I can do calculus but occasionally simple arithmetic escapes me). 5% however is greater than 2.3%

I have to say elfdart, it is one thing to brain-fart on what goes into a probability estimate while in an argument with a putz on the internet. It is another to make a big deal out of a mistake in someone's math, when the correction only shows that a german court is half as likely to falsely convict you, rather than 33% as likely.

And that Elfdart is called taking responsibility for a mistake or false claim that was shown to be false. Something I note you do not ever do.

The issue, which you are too much of a fucking imbecile to grasp is how many people are wrongly convicted.

While wrongful convictions are nasty yes, our system is not set up for determining if someone was wrongfully convicted. Only if there was a legal error which affected the trial. That is the difference. In the case of a jury trial, we do not actually isolate the variable of jury stupidity completely with that. If the evidence was poor, but the trial completely on the level in terms of the law, an innocent person will still be executed or sent to prison for X number of years.

You know nothing about either subject and it hasn't stopped you yet.

How many stats courses have you taken Elfdart? Do you know how to do path analysis? How about Canonical correspondance analysis? Nested multivariate analysis of covariance? Can you even do a simple students T Test?

If not, shut the fuck up.

You will provide evidence that it's the fault of the jurors when the judge gives erroneous instructions.

What? Like you provide evidence at repeated requests of mine? I dont need to provide that. It is self-evident. A competent person would know what the charges are, what evidence is required to sustain those, what testimony has been stricken, or that in a rape case they should not consider the character assassination of the victim brought up by the defense. If a judge has to instruct a person on those things and then hope that said person actually listens, then perhaps you need to reconsider having that person hearing the case.

All the instructions to the jury are, is an attempt by the system to cover its own ass. An attempt at saying "Well we told them how to do it, the rest is up to them and we will assume they followed our instructions because we cannot ask them for their reasoning later"

That very necessity is a source for error which would be drastically reduced by using a panel of judges, professional juries, hell you can use a panel of criminal laywers on jury rotation for all I care.

The authors of the study (at least as it was described in the NYT) made it a point to draw a distinction between the state's suppression of exculpatory evidence on one hand, and other forms of misconduct on the other. So there's no reason to assume that when the cause of wrongful conviction is listed as "errors caused by faulty instructions given to juries by the judge", it really means "juries are too stupid to understand the judge"

This statement is a non-sequiter. How do you go from "State suppression of evidence has not occurred" to "errors caused by bad instructions are not the fault of the jury" That makes no sense. The two do not flow logically.

When the judge tells the jury that the defendant's state of mind when he killed so-and-so is not relevant in deciding premeditated murder when by law it is, and the jury does as the judge instructs, that's the fault of the judge.

Do you have a detailed breakdown of the sorts of instruction errors committed by judges? It would need to substantially be of this sort in order to even match the (legal at least) accuracy of the german system. Additionally, sometimes the state of mind, while legally relevant, is not actually relevant. You would need to separate those to.

For example, in the case of the man who assassinated Dr. George Tiller the judge said he was going to let the jury consider manslaughter instead of premeditated murder since Scott Roeder claimed that he believed he was stopping infanticide by killing the doctor. Now the judge realized that he had fucked up (to be charitable) and told the jury differently later in the trial and the jury convicted Roeder of murder anyway, but if the judge hadn't corrected himself and the jury did give manslaughter instead of first degree murder, it's not the fault of the jury and it's certainly not evidence that the jury is stupid since jurors are told from Day One that they must follow the instructions given by the judge.

Yes, and a competent tribunal or professional jury would not have to rely on being carefully instructed. That is the whole fucking point. The jury system, whether via error in instructions or due to jury stupidity, has a massive source for error just in the instructions that must be delivered to a lay jury. How difficult is that for you to understand?

Oh no! We have Alyrium Denryle, who can't reason his way out of a wet paper bag!

Hey Elfdart, here is an idea. Stop projecting your own inadequacies on others.

Speaking of paper bags, watching you attempt to make a point while doing grade school-level math is even more pathetic than watching a hobo under a bridge huffing nail polish remover out of one.

Do you have a specific argument to make, or are you simply putting up a smokescreen because you cannot deal with the point adequately?

Who says it's the jury that fucked up? Oh, you do. One problem: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Assuming everything else was on the level, yeah. That is the only way it could occur. All evidence provided properly, all of it well argued by skilled lawyers, proper jury instructions, unbiased judge etc. Yes. That is the only variable in the equation that can lead to a false conviction.

Do you have alternatives?

The judge can overrule and acquit a defendant or declare a mistrial or order a directed verdict of not guilty. At least they can in my state. It may be different in other jurisdictions.

That may well be true, but just because they can does not mean they are unconstrained as to the conditions under which they can do so.

That whole logic thing is just too much for you, isn't it? If the smaller percentage of wrongful convictions that are the result of jury error are reason enough to abolish the jury system entirely, then the much larger numbers resulting from errors or misconduct from judges and attorneys makes it that much more logical to abolish them as well.

No, those are causes for certain reforms in the way judges are selected as well. I have held for a long time (and in fact, in this very thread) that the position of judge should not be an elected position or partisan appointee, and have laid out ways in which that can be fixed as well. I want a wholescale restructuring of our legal system, not just getting rid of lay juries.

Now go and suck down some car exhaust.

[eyl]

On the actual topic:
What advantages do juries actually have?
I understand that they had a valid use once upon a time - where judges could rule out of cruelty or personal bias and there was next to no way to appeal such a judgment. But this is not the case any more, if such a thing happens you can appeal it pretty well. Actually, it seems like juries are a blockade to such an appeal, since their working is not visible. Thus, if the jury rules based on prejudice etc.
Therefore, juries are actually furthering what they are intended to prevent.

I simply see no advantage in juries.

One possible advantage I can see is that it reshuffles the people making the verdict for each case. This can potentially serve as a guard against certain judges being idiots (which can possibly be a significant problem if you have a small pool of judges in an area). While it's true you can appeal, AFAIK in many places you can only appeal if an error of law was made, in which case you may not be able to override the decision of a judge who repeatedly makes retarded - but still staying within legal and ethical lines - decisions*. And even if you can appeal, that can take potentially years, while the first judgment against you is standing.

Whether the problem is big enough to require juries (and if they do in fact provide a solution) is another question, of course.

*that's also the only possible advantage I can think of for judges being elected, which also has a lot to recommend against it)

[Serafina]

One possible advantage I can see is that it reshuffles the people making the verdict for each case. This can potentially serve as a guard against certain judges being idiots (which can possibly be a significant problem if you have a small pool of judges in an area).

But juries are not an improvement, since they are much more likely to consist of idiots or at least unqualified people (they are the latter by definition).
And you also remove any quality control - judges are selected and can be dismissed, but the standards are non-existant or much lower for juries.
So, no advantage here.

[Serafina]

Oh, @ Elfdart:

Which isn't saying much since Germany doesn't have a death penalty.

I wonder why

Because at Nuremberg, the right people received it for a change?

You know that the Nuremgberg Trials did not even HAVE a jury, right?
Again, your answer was just a fucktard answer.

[HMS Conqueror]

Giving state officials direct and total control of all levels of the justice system is very dangerous in my view. It centralises far too much power. Many other areas of our society are centralised in that manner, of course, but they rather should be liberalised, rather than the courts brought into line with them.

In Singapore the jury system was abolished early in the 1960s/1970s as it was felt that laypeople were not capable of understanding the relevance of the arguments presented by the prosecution and defence at a trial and it does bear some relevance. As a result the judge is the ultimate arbiter,deciding both innocence/guilt and the sentence according to the parameters of the law.

Is that the real reason, or just what the government told everyone? I'm not sure if you're aware that Singapore is effectively a one party state with a controlled media. The government want those laws to be enforced, not jury nullification by fellow dissenters stopping the suppression.

[Manthor]

Giving state officials direct and total control of all levels of the justice system is very dangerous in my view. It centralises far too much power. Many other areas of our society are centralised in that manner, of course, but they rather should be liberalised, rather than the courts brought into line with them.

In Singapore the jury system was abolished early in the 1960s/1970s as it was felt that laypeople were not capable of understanding the relevance of the arguments presented by the prosecution and defence at a trial and it does bear some relevance. As a result the judge is the ultimate arbiter,deciding both innocence/guilt and the sentence according to the parameters of the law.

Is that the real reason, or just what the government told everyone? I'm not sure if you're aware that Singapore is effectively a one party state with a controlled media. The government want those laws to be enforced, not jury nullification by fellow dissenters stopping the suppression.

Oh I am quite aware of that.I just wanted to focus the discussion on the matter of juries in general and the case for them.Bringing up the Singapore system was as a matter of example.Besides I lived there and served my conscription within the army there so I know about the bad points to the system. By bringing up the issue of the government controlled judiciary,I am opening the topic to the possibility of derailment.

[Elfdart]

Again, your answer was just a fucktard answer.

I guess you missed the part.

[Elfdart]

Defendants were acquitted in seven percent of the death penalty cases that were sent back for re-trial, you fucking moron.

Ah, I misread the sentence somehow. Mae culpa. Additionally, I mistook the math (again, I can do calculus but occasionally simple arithmetic escapes me). 5% however is greater than 2.3%

I have to say elfdart, it is one thing to brain-fart on what goes into a probability estimate while in an argument with a putz on the internet. It is another to make a big deal out of a mistake in someone's math, when the correction only shows that a german court is half as likely to falsely convict you, rather than 33% as likely.

It's not your faulty ciphering, it's your dishonesty and stupidity. The figure of 2.3% is only for the German high court. I assume that lower courts in Germany overturn at least as many convictions as the high court, if not more. So both justice systems produce wrongful verdicts at roughly the same rate: between 4.5 to 5%.

And that Elfdart is called taking responsibility for a mistake or false claim that was shown to be false. Something I note you do not ever do.

That's because I'm almost always right. Deal with it.

The issue, which you are too much of a fucking imbecile to grasp is how many people are wrongly convicted.

While wrongful convictions are nasty yes, our system is not set up for determining if someone was wrongfully convicted. Only if there was a legal error which affected the trial. That is the difference. In the case of a jury trial, we do not actually isolate the variable of jury stupidity completely with that. If the evidence was poor, but the trial completely on the level in terms of the law, an innocent person will still be executed or sent to prison for X number of years.

So the Congress and state legislatures pass one law after another gutting the rights of Habeus corpus, rights of appeal, rights to challenge bogus or perjured evidence and it's the jury's fault that people get screwed by the system?

Come to think of it, you may have blundered on to something: Most states draw jurors from lists of registered voters, and those voters elected the judges, prosecutors and those who write laws that railroad suspects in at least 5% of cases, so maybe they really are to blame.

I have a solution: Don't just abolish jurors -abolish voters, too!

You will provide evidence that it's the fault of the jurors when the judge gives erroneous instructions.

What? Like you provide evidence at repeated requests of mine? I dont need to provide that. It is self-evident.

If you're not going to offer evidence to support your claims other than whining about what a meanie I am, or claiming it's "self-evident", then I've got two words for you:

Concession accepted.

A competent person would know what the charges are, what evidence is required to sustain those, what testimony has been stricken, or that in a rape case they should not consider the character assassination of the victim brought up by the defense. If a judge has to instruct a person on those things and then hope that said person actually listens, then perhaps you need to reconsider having that person hearing the case.

A "competent person" would also have to do as the judge says. If he or she refuses (remember: no jury, no jury nullification), they could face sanction from the judge.

The authors of the study (at least as it was described in the NYT) made it a point to draw a distinction between the state's suppression of exculpatory evidence on one hand, and other forms of misconduct on the other. So there's no reason to assume that when the cause of wrongful conviction is listed as "errors caused by faulty instructions given to juries by the judge", it really means "juries are too stupid to understand the judge"

This statement is a non-sequiter. How do you go from "State suppression of evidence has not occurred" to "errors caused by bad instructions are not the fault of the jury" That makes no sense. The two do not flow logically.

If the authors of the study wanted to blame the jurors, they would have done so. They had no qualms about citing juror bias/prejudice to explain some of the wrongful verdicts, so if they thought juries were the main problem in the case of faulty jury instructions, they would have said so. They didn't.

When the judge tells the jury that the defendant's state of mind when he killed so-and-so is not relevant in deciding premeditated murder when by law it is, and the jury does as the judge instructs, that's the fault of the judge.

Do you have a detailed breakdown of the sorts of instruction errors committed by judges? It would need to substantially be of this sort in order to even match the (legal at least) accuracy of the german system. Additionally, sometimes the state of mind, while legally relevant, is not actually relevant. You would need to separate those to.

No. I'm going by what the authors of the study actually wrote.

Yes, and a competent tribunal or professional jury would not have to rely on being carefully instructed. That is the whole fucking point. The jury system, whether via error in instructions or due to jury stupidity, has a massive source for error just in the instructions that must be delivered to a lay jury. How difficult is that for you to understand?

See above. Judges instruct attorneys as well as juries.

Who says it's the jury that fucked up? Oh, you do. One problem: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Assuming everything else was on the level, yeah. That is the only way it could occur. All evidence provided properly, all of it well argued by skilled lawyers, proper jury instructions, unbiased judge etc. Yes. That is the only variable in the equation that can lead to a false conviction.

Do you have alternatives?

And that is why you fail. Very seldom is "everything else on the level" in court.

That whole logic thing is just too much for you, isn't it? If the smaller percentage of wrongful convictions that are the result of jury error are reason enough to abolish the jury system entirely, then the much larger numbers resulting from errors or misconduct from judges and attorneys makes it that much more logical to abolish them as well.

No, those are causes for certain reforms in the way judges are selected as well. I have held for a long time (and in fact, in this very thread) that the position of judge should not be an elected position or partisan appointee, and have laid out ways in which that can be fixed as well. I want a wholescale restructuring of our legal system, not just getting rid of lay juries.

Be sure to start a new thread when you succeed.

[Thanas]

Defendants were acquitted in seven percent of the death penalty cases that were sent back for re-trial, you fucking moron.

Ah, I misread the sentence somehow. Mae culpa. Additionally, I mistook the math (again, I can do calculus but occasionally simple arithmetic escapes me). 5% however is greater than 2.3%

I have to say elfdart, it is one thing to brain-fart on what goes into a probability estimate while in an argument with a putz on the internet. It is another to make a big deal out of a mistake in someone's math, when the correction only shows that a german court is half as likely to falsely convict you, rather than 33% as likely.

It's not your faulty ciphering, it's your dishonesty and stupidity. The figure of 2.3% is only for the German high court. I assume that lower courts in Germany overturn at least as many convictions as the high court, if not more. So both justice systems produce wrongful verdicts at roughly the same rate: between 4.5 to 5%.

Please cite sources for the rate of overturned appeals in the lower courts of Germany.

Also, note that the Supreme court reverses about 75% of the cases it hears, compared to 2.3% of the German BGH.

I finally found statistics for the US court system:

Link.

A rate of 9.6% of cases by the federal courts of appeal were reversed. So the figure is much higher than you claim.

[Elfdart]

Please cite sources for the rate of overturned appeals in the lower courts of Germany.

You missed the part where I said I assume. Are you saying that lower courts in Germany don't overturn convictions?

Also, note that the Supreme court reverses about 75% of the cases it hears, compared to 2.3% of the German BGH.

Of course. They only accept cases from the lower courts if they have reason to believe they might rule differently. Otherwise, they let the lower court's decision stand.

I finally found statistics for the US court system:

Link.

A rate of 9.6% of cases by the federal courts of appeal were reversed. So the figure is much higher than you claim.

First of all, I'm not the one making the claim. It came from a source you cited. Second, you really should read the sources you cite. The 9.6% refers to all cases, many of which (including bankruptcy) aren't heard by juries at all. The rates of overturning criminal verdicts range from 15.5% in the District of Columbia, to 4.4% in the Fifth Circuit (overall the rate is 6.8% nationwide).

[Thanas]

Please cite sources for the rate of overturned appeals in the lower courts of Germany.

You missed the part where I said I assume. Are you saying that lower courts in Germany don't overturn convictions?

Of course they do. Now cite sources for your claim.

Also, note that the Supreme court reverses about 75% of the cases it hears, compared to 2.3% of the German BGH.

Of course. They only accept cases from the lower courts if they have reason to believe they might rule differently. Otherwise, they let the lower court's decision stand.

We have the same thing in Germany, though it is a bit more relaxed.

I finally found statistics for the US court system:

Link.

A rate of 9.6% of cases by the federal courts of appeal were reversed. So the figure is much higher than you claim.

First of all, I'm not the one making the claim. It came from a source you cited. Second, you really should read the sources you cite. The 9.6% refers to all cases, many of which (including bankruptcy) aren't heard by juries at all. The rates of overturning criminal verdicts range from 15.5% in the District of Columbia, to 4.4% in the Fifth Circuit (overall the rate is 6.8% nationwide).[/quote]

Still way higher than your claim, though.

[Elfdart]

Please cite sources for the rate of overturned appeals in the lower courts of Germany.

You missed the part where I said I assume. Are you saying that lower courts in Germany don't overturn convictions?

Of course they do. Now cite sources for your claim.

It's called speculation. If the lower courts don't overturn convictions at the same rate as the highest court, then how often do they overturn?

We have the same thing in Germany, though it is a bit more relaxed.

Which only proves my point: The Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the lower courts when it refuses to hear the case.

First of all, I'm not the one making the claim. It came from a source you cited. Second, you really should read the sources you cite. The 9.6% refers to all cases, many of which (including bankruptcy) aren't heard by juries at all. The rates of overturning criminal verdicts range from 15.5% in the District of Columbia, to 4.4% in the Fifth Circuit (overall the rate is 6.8% nationwide).

Still way higher than your my first claim, though.

You cited the first study, so quit trying to palm it off on me.

[Thanas]

It's called speculation. If the lower courts don't overturn convictions at the same rate as the highest court, then how often do they overturn?

Eh...no. I spent enough time already looking for statistics for you. You made the claim about German courts. But let us say your claim was correct, just as a thought exercise. That still leaves the US with way more wrongful convictions than Germany.

You cited the first study, so quit trying to palm it off on me.

No, you were the one extrapolating the 5% rate of wrongful conviction in total. Your claim was proven wrong.

[Elfdart]

Eh...no. I spent enough time already looking for statistics for you.

Oh no you don't. You insisted on bringing up all overturned convictions in the US while only citing those overturned by the highest court in Germany. Don't want to produce the numbers for all overturned convictions in Germany? Fine -we won't count those. At the same time, we should also exclude all overturned convictions in the US unless they were overturned by the Supreme Court. Which is it?

You made the claim about German courts. But let us say your claim was correct, just as a thought exercise. That still leaves the US with way more wrongful convictions than Germany.

Nationwide, 6.8% to 4.6% is a difference, but since when is 2.2% "way more"? Feel free to explain why the 5th Circuit actually does better (4.4%) -yet they use juries.

You cited the first study, so quit trying to palm it off on me.

No, you were the one extrapolating the 5% rate of wrongful conviction in total.

Based on the article you cited.

Your claim was proven wrong.

No, you came back later with another link and tried to muddy the issue by lumping jury and non-jury cases together.

[Thanas]

Eh...no. I spent enough time already looking for statistics for you.

Oh no you don't. You insisted on bringing up all overturned convictions in the US while only citing those overturned by the highest court in Germany. Don't want to produce the numbers for all overturned convictions in Germany?

How the fuck do you expect me to produce something which does not exist? I can produce how many cases there are, but that is about all. Link. As they do not mention the reason for why they were finished or so.

Fine -we won't count those. At the same time, we should also exclude all overturned convictions in the US unless they were overturned by the Supreme Court. Which is it?

This would be a relevant argument if the BGH would be structured like the supreme court, instead of being more like a court of appeals.

You made the claim about German courts. But let us say your claim was correct, just as a thought exercise. That still leaves the US with way more wrongful convictions than Germany.

Nationwide, 6.8% to 4.6% is a difference, but since when is 2.2% "way more"? Feel free to explain why the 5th Circuit actually does better (4.4%) -yet they use juries.

THe 5th circuit seems to be an outlier and if you think nearly 50% more wrongful convictions is not way more...

Based on the article you cited.

SO what? I am supposed to take the blame for you pulling numbers out of your behind?

No, you came back later with another link and tried to muddy the issue by lumping jury and non-jury cases together.

Weren't you the one who wanted us to focus on the overall rate of convictions by jury and non-jury cases alike in Germany and the USA? So what are you complaining about here?

[Thanas]

In any case, here is what I found:

link

For a complete review of the social science literature through 2001, see Dennis J. Devine, et al, "Jury Decision-Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups," 7 Psychology, Pub. Pol. & L. 622 (2001). This article identifies four emerging themes from the research:
- Jurors rarely make decisions exactly in the manner contemplated by the jury instructions.
- Personal characteristics are not a very powerful predictor of decision making.
- Jurors are most susceptible to influence from nonevidence factors when the evidence does not clearly favor one side.
- Deliberation processes do sometimes affect jury decision making.

So what do you say to that? At least 3 of those will not be present in professional judges. Especially not number 1 and 3.

[Darth Yan]

I remember in one show they make a great deal of keeping a defendent's previous conviction out because it will almost certainly make the jury prejudiced against him (he was on trial for murdering his landlord, he had already served time for murdering his wife), despite the fact that there was no real evidence against him. They only win because the conviction was kept out. I'm curious as too how true it is the juries a.) love confessions b.) are prejudiced against ex convicts.

My father served on jury duty, and he said that they do try to make some effort to keep the jury impartial. Case in point, people who like CSI or shows which oversimplify forensic evidence and police work are generally excluded.

[Kanastrous]

FWIW having been empaneled a couple of times, a confession in a criminal case (or admission of liability in a civil one) would certainly simplify the process and relieve me as a juror of the task of deciding guilt or liability and focus instead upon determining the sentence or judgment. So yeah, I guess 'love' is a strong word but I'd sure like it.

If a judge instructs me that I am to exclude a defendant's prior record from my deliberations, I'm bound to do it to the best of my ability. Whether or not I feel prejudice I would be violating my obligations if I permitted it to color my thinking.

[Highlord Laan]

So long as The Media is allowed to constantly follow and air court cases to the general populace as the trial is still going, there will be no such thing as an unbiased jury. I'm all for professional juries composed of people who make a study of law much akin to how surgeons study medicine. Add in blocking media access to the trial itself, with the exception of a prepared press release made by a representative of the court.

I know blocking the media has risks of it's own, but I'd rather risk a court overstepping itself than have the kind of three ring circuses that "journalists" like to make occur (ex: OJ Simpson trial.)

Get the media out of the courtroom, make the Jury as well educated and professional as we expect Judges to be, and give the Judge the authority to come down on Lawyers trying to pull heartstrings, and I think the system would improve greatly. A Court of Law is no place to let emotions reign. From Juror to Lawyer to Judge, the more disassociated from the "human condition" they are, the better. It's not just the life or livelihood of the accused, or the justice of the accuser at stake, it's the validity of the whole dammed system at stake. Fucking with it for the sake of emotional reasons is just a plain hideous idea.

Just the facts, please.

[Highlord Laan]

Whoops. Sorry.