Why? Universities are enough, surely. They aren't exactly hens teeth, and if they are, just lower the number of jurors needed
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trial by Jury - What's your take on it?
- Thread starter miller.skippins
- Start date
Why? Universities are enough, surely. They aren't exactly hens teeth, and if they are, just lower the number of jurors needed
ZackieChan
Member
Start drafting the constitutional amendment - we've got a winner here.
miller.skippins
Banned
not everyone go through college or universities..unless you proposed only post-grads eligible for jury duties?
It might just be a product of my environment. It seems a lot of people are studying and graduating Criminology in Australia but if we limit it to just post grads, that probably thins the numbers a bit too much.
Still, a work experience criminologist doing jury duty as apart of their study has still got to be somewhat better than Joe Schmo who's pissed about missing the football
Chairmanchuck
Member
On the one hand you have a judge who knows the law, has enough experience with cases etc.
On the other hand you might have some random buffkin who loves Judge Judy.
If people are so concerned, that its unfair that only one judge judges a trial, why not just use more. Like I said. In Germany for bigger cases you have more than one judge.
TheExecutive
Member
I have been in a jury. People are idiots and it terrified me into following the law.
Noisy Ninj4
Member
Juries, where they exist and have systems to properly maintain them, is the only direct way for the public to have any say in matters of law other than voter initiatives. It's pretty much the final defense against tyranny that exists within a legal framework. When you can't trust politicians to make good laws or police to properly enforce them, when prosecutors misuse their discretion, and when judges fail to be impartial or just, at least you can still make your case to a panel of regular ass people. They're subject to bias and all the usual problems, but so is voting. If you can't trust a group of normal people to make an important decision that affects your life, then democracy might not be for you.
On a side note, we'd probably have way better motivated jury pools if we had UBI.
On a side note, we'd probably have way better motivated jury pools if we had UBI.
The arguments for and against juries are pretty similar to the arguments for and against extending voting rights to as many people as possible. On the one hand, requiring qualifications means that you probably get people who are by some standards better than what you'd get otherwise. Your judges/voters will be smarter, more educated, etc. On the other hand, doing this means that the decision-makers won't be representative of the population, and because of the ways that the characteristics you're looking for correlate with other characteristics, you can end up biasing the process against particular kinds of people in an inappropriate way. For example, the ABA says that 6% of Alabama's judges are black, but 26% of the population is.
I feel like you can't trust juries as far as you can throw 'em. Too many high profile cases of black victims going to shit because the people on board are decidedly racist and emotional. There either needs to be a better selection process, we should defer this shit to multiple judges and lawyers.
Chairmanchuck
Member
Law (or judging law) is a profession though, not something like a voting right.
I wouldnt let my mental health be judged by a group of 10 normal people and rather someone who studied it.
Thatonemoor
Member
Been in mock trial clubs with professional lawyers since high school and the common opinion I keep seeing is that Jurors are idiots and can sway a case to crazy conclusions. So yeah, I think we should get rid of them.
BlackLagoon
Member
That's not the only alternative though. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, a number of countries use a panel of professional judges and lay judges instead of a jury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge
hydrophilic attack
Member
American juries so often seem to arrive at really racist verdicts
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Flawed, but miles better than any other system.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
"Jury of your peers" is one of the most frightening phrases I can think of. I was in a mock jury once for a buddy of mine that was in law school, and..............wow. People are just not competent enough.
As a crimniologist we shouldn't be anyone first choice
I'd rather a panel of judges than a group of people where some of them can form ideas like, "yeah that guy is guilty" even before the first word of the trial is said. As a Canadian watching and reading the hysteria surrounding the Omar Khadr apology and compensation, why would I ever want to put my life in the hands of people ignorant of the law?
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Go on...
Juries made out of just random ass people sounds crazy to me. Scary as hell.
If you're not versed in law and/or not intricately involved with even the tiniest details of the case you basically judge based on one thing. Knee-jerk emotion and intuition. Basically, you judge by 'feel'.
These people fill in the blanks themselves. Any attorney can twist and squeeze any story whatever way they see fit to try to incite undue sympathy from the jury, or other victims can unknowingly incite racial and stereotypical biases which all affect the way a jury renders it's verdict.
If people were 100% rational automatons that always 'did the right thing', then i'd be for it.
But damn, we're not even close.
If you're not versed in law and/or not intricately involved with even the tiniest details of the case you basically judge based on one thing. Knee-jerk emotion and intuition. Basically, you judge by 'feel'.
These people fill in the blanks themselves. Any attorney can twist and squeeze any story whatever way they see fit to try to incite undue sympathy from the jury, or other victims can unknowingly incite racial and stereotypical biases which all affect the way a jury renders it's verdict.
If people were 100% rational automatons that always 'did the right thing', then i'd be for it.
But damn, we're not even close.
PeskyToaster
Member
Maybe we need some sort of literacy test or jury tax to ensure that only the educated and stable can become jurors?
Only the educated people, mentally stable, accountable for their decisions, preferably versed in law...
Oh wait, we have those people. They are called judges. Use more than one if you have to, like a ton of other countries do.
miller.skippins
Banned
Wow...I wouldn't have thought so many westerners were anti trial by jury when I made this thread.
Is there any constitutional amendment that you guys can push to get rid of it though?
Is there any constitutional amendment that you guys can push to get rid of it though?
Noisy Ninj4
Member
In the US, the constitution can be amended to say pretty much anything, you just need enough political will and agreement to do so. Considering the current environment a constitutional amendment is pretty much impossible even for popular stuff, so something like this would never see the light of day much less pass.
Granted, most jury trials are run by a state judiciary rather than federal, so you'd also need to somehow restrict state power from forming juries.
The Albatross
Member
For me, a lot of this comes back to the "confidence in numbers" thought experiment. If you bring an expert on construction over to the Burj Dubai building and ask him or her to guess how tall the building is, they might make a pretty good guess, they could be exactly right, or they could be wildly off because individual bias that they think is expertise has misinformed them. But if you bring 1,000 people to the Burj Dubai and ask them to guess how tall it is, the average of those answers is likely to be closer to reality than the one expert. This is all to say that while one individual expert or one individual person could exactly guess the height of something, the opportunity for one individual expert or one individual person to get something wildly wrong is much greater than the mean of many people getting it wrong, where guesses that are wildly off are generally cancelled out. In the case of criminal justice, this becomes more important. An expert could get 10 cases right, but if that expert gets one case horribly wrong, then the entire criminal justice system is threatened. Meanwhile, a group of average people may get 10 cases mostly right without having those (or having fewer) cases that they get horribly wrong because the extremes are usually cancelled out. Now, obviously, a jury of 12 is not a mass of 1,000, but when jurors are selected right and the case is argued fairly, I'd trust the majority opinion of many people over the technocratic opinion of the one (or three) expert. Not that there aren't ideas for better systems that may work very well though and I'm open to other ones.
Yep, this is my take. I think history would show that a jury of 12 average people, in a fair system reasonably argued by both sides, would make the right decision more so than a single judge or a small panel of technocrats. An issue is that it's not always a fair system, it's not always reasonably argued by both sides, but, in those cases, a single judge or a panel of technocrats would not help and would likely make things worse.
For every case of a jury wrongfully convicting someone or wrongfully exonerating someone, you can typically point to something else in that case that should have been done differently, and then, likewise, could come up with just as many if not more examples of a panel of technocrats or a single judge doing something much worse or acting much more unjustly.
Coupled with a separate sentencing process, in addition to the process of appeals, I think juries are a best choice in a system that is really impossible to implement perfectly.
The problem with this is the chasm between 'certified criminologists' and the average person who is likely to be standing trial. When you start adding requirements that a jury can only be made up of university trained certified criminologists, you've just made it nearly impossible to have juries that are anything but white, upper-middle class, or at least, are predominantly from that demographic. And while a certified criminologist might try their best to "not be racist" or "not be biased," if you're selecting your jury pool from a very small, very specific group of people, who tend to be overwhelmingly of one race and overwhelmingly of one class, it makes it very difficult for them to fairly adjudicate issues involving all ranges of people. A group of Harvard educated lawyers may be experts in the field of law, who can cite from memory hundreds of important cases throughout history, but growing up in Upper Manhattan, and going to a $50,000/year prep school from 16-18, and then Princeton for 4 years, and Harvard Law for 5 years, makes it increasingly difficult to identify with the issues and situations of someone who dropped out of high school and has lived on the streets for half their life.
Not that juries aren't often disconnected from the people in the cases that they try either, it's just that the more you separate your jurors from the people who they're listening to, the less just the system tends to be. If a jury is made up mostly of people of privilege, who have all been taught the same thing from the same books with the same professors who all went to the same universities, they end up simply not being exposed to challenges and issues that the people going through the legal system have been exposed to. And, for the person facing trial, if they go in front of a board of technocrats who are all white, upper-middle-class, who have to take their kids to soccer practice in the morning, and drive a certified pre-owned Audi home, while meanwhile this person facing trial came from very little, didn't have two parents to take them to practice anything, and they're being tried for breaking into a '96 civic to steal the headlines, there's not a lot of trust between the person being tried and the people doing the trying.
The criminal justice system already has significant trust issues that need real improvement to be overcome, but those trust issues only become exacerbated when jurors continue to look less and less like the people who are being adjudicated.
Yep, this is my take. I think history would show that a jury of 12 average people, in a fair system reasonably argued by both sides, would make the right decision more so than a single judge or a small panel of technocrats. An issue is that it's not always a fair system, it's not always reasonably argued by both sides, but, in those cases, a single judge or a panel of technocrats would not help and would likely make things worse.
For every case of a jury wrongfully convicting someone or wrongfully exonerating someone, you can typically point to something else in that case that should have been done differently, and then, likewise, could come up with just as many if not more examples of a panel of technocrats or a single judge doing something much worse or acting much more unjustly.
Coupled with a separate sentencing process, in addition to the process of appeals, I think juries are a best choice in a system that is really impossible to implement perfectly.
The problem with this is the chasm between 'certified criminologists' and the average person who is likely to be standing trial. When you start adding requirements that a jury can only be made up of university trained certified criminologists, you've just made it nearly impossible to have juries that are anything but white, upper-middle class, or at least, are predominantly from that demographic. And while a certified criminologist might try their best to "not be racist" or "not be biased," if you're selecting your jury pool from a very small, very specific group of people, who tend to be overwhelmingly of one race and overwhelmingly of one class, it makes it very difficult for them to fairly adjudicate issues involving all ranges of people. A group of Harvard educated lawyers may be experts in the field of law, who can cite from memory hundreds of important cases throughout history, but growing up in Upper Manhattan, and going to a $50,000/year prep school from 16-18, and then Princeton for 4 years, and Harvard Law for 5 years, makes it increasingly difficult to identify with the issues and situations of someone who dropped out of high school and has lived on the streets for half their life.
Not that juries aren't often disconnected from the people in the cases that they try either, it's just that the more you separate your jurors from the people who they're listening to, the less just the system tends to be. If a jury is made up mostly of people of privilege, who have all been taught the same thing from the same books with the same professors who all went to the same universities, they end up simply not being exposed to challenges and issues that the people going through the legal system have been exposed to. And, for the person facing trial, if they go in front of a board of technocrats who are all white, upper-middle-class, who have to take their kids to soccer practice in the morning, and drive a certified pre-owned Audi home, while meanwhile this person facing trial came from very little, didn't have two parents to take them to practice anything, and they're being tried for breaking into a '96 civic to steal the headlines, there's not a lot of trust between the person being tried and the people doing the trying.
The criminal justice system already has significant trust issues that need real improvement to be overcome, but those trust issues only become exacerbated when jurors continue to look less and less like the people who are being adjudicated.
I think it's ridiculous, b cause anyone can be a jury and you basically have these lawyers trained in the art of dancing around and with words dumbing down a situation for a group of people who may or may not understand anything that's deeper than the surface level of the case. It's open to being influenced by media and the lawyers themselves. Basically it is not as impartial as having a judge since the jury can be easily swayed towards a side because of misrepresentation and prejudice.
India used to have a jury system that got abolished in 1959. And a lot had to do with this case Commander K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.
Some background on this. Basically a Navy commander was tried for the murder of his wife's lover and found not guilty by the Jury. The problem with this was the case received an immense amount of media attention due to the involvement of a high ranking officer and people belonging to upper class of the Indian society. This led to the high court to dismiss the original outcome because it believed that the jury was being easily misled by the media and finally abolish the jury system
India used to have a jury system that got abolished in 1959. And a lot had to do with this case Commander K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.
Some background on this. Basically a Navy commander was tried for the murder of his wife's lover and found not guilty by the Jury. The problem with this was the case received an immense amount of media attention due to the involvement of a high ranking officer and people belonging to upper class of the Indian society. This led to the high court to dismiss the original outcome because it believed that the jury was being easily misled by the media and finally abolish the jury system
i would not trust a random selection of 12 people with anything let alone deciding on people's lives.
then there's the striking process which is a big farce. striking because of race, striking because of anti-gun beliefs...guess what, some of your peers are black and some don't like guns.
then there's the emotional manipulation and people letting their biases and emotions cloud their judgement instead of relying on the facts.
then there's the striking process which is a big farce. striking because of race, striking because of anti-gun beliefs...guess what, some of your peers are black and some don't like guns.
then there's the emotional manipulation and people letting their biases and emotions cloud their judgement instead of relying on the facts.
Stone Ocean
Member
Being a judge gives you a better ability to understand the law and its circumstances than 12 random people, yes. If it's a matter of more people, thats what we have tribunals for.
That said, juries aren't really about the law as much as they are about emotions. It's basically a sales pitch battle.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1405969
Add this into the, "jurors are idiots" pile. Thank god a judge tossed this nonsense out.
Add this into the, "jurors are idiots" pile. Thank god a judge tossed this nonsense out.
The thing is, shouldn't the trial judge have indicated that that was unjust at the time?
I'm not going to say that jurors are flawless, but the whole system is dependent on them being given accurate guidance.
Chairmanchuck
Member
What if this guidance is then given by attorney who just want their clients to be free?
Imagine if some evidence surfaced thats actually not be supposed to be used in court, but its available on the internet, jurors talk about that even though they shouldnt, then form their opinion on a case about that. Then later its known that the evidence was fake.
There is a reason e.g. why not every stuff can be used as evidence, because it can be fake, it might infringe the rights of others etc.
Most jurors wont care about that.
Heck. Even my great uncle and aunt, you wouldnt notice how racist they are if you just talk to them and you are not close to them. At family dinners though. Wow! In a case where a refugee raped someone, they would be easily influenced by their racist views though.
thechristoph
Sir!
When I was on a jury, the prosecutor and the defense both had to state that CSI is not real and that you shouldn't ever expect to see that sort of evidence in a real trial. They did a show of hands, "who watches crime shows like CSI?" It was kind of embarrassing.
I specified the Trial Judge, who's at least meant to be the neutral expert in the matter. And if he's not the neutral expert in the matter... then the problem isn't with the jury at that point.
The problem with this logic is the same as outlined above: It implies that a judge would inherently not have such biases, which isn't necessarily the case. I'd rather have a group of people who could potentially mitigate one anothers' than one with total power. There's certainly an argument for multiple judges, but given the waiting times and workload from the Jury's point of view, I suspect there might not realistically be enough people out there with the skillset to do it for the number of cases that need appraising.
And besides, I'd also suggest that if we take it as implicit that multiple judges would inherently come to the correct answer... we wouldn't be worried about the current makeup of the US supreme court.
The cases I juried on, the Judge made it very explicit to us that he has the responsibility to guide us correctly, and I think that he did in both cases. I'm not sure you can necessarily ask for more than that.
There is one other factor that's worth bringing up: ignorance is of benefit in the other direction, too. The Juryman's tale touches on this, and I had some personal experience : A judge will, by necessity, know too much, and that in turn can affect how they see a given issue. In The Juryman's Tale, there were a bunch of prior convictions that the Jury were deliberately not informed of during the trial, for fear that that would taint their opinion on the specific issue at hand; the judge's role means that they'd have to already know about those previous convictions.
In the US, one of the main issues I have is the fact you get paid basically a bus ticket's worth a day.
So most young people, anyone who is busy and not retired, or simply can't afford time off work either:
a) Don't want to be on a jury and will do all they can to exit
b) If they do end up on a jury, they have reason to want the deliberations to go as quickly as possible (meaning even if they feel a certain way about the case, if the majority are going in a direction they probably will too)
"b" is an issue in general; dominant personalities will win over a lot of jurors even if their logic isn't sound, but because people don't feel like rocking the boat.
Conceptually I think it's great; but in practice in a capitalist society full of people who can't afford to take time off of work, I think juries tend to be less of a representation of your peers than they should.
So most young people, anyone who is busy and not retired, or simply can't afford time off work either:
a) Don't want to be on a jury and will do all they can to exit
b) If they do end up on a jury, they have reason to want the deliberations to go as quickly as possible (meaning even if they feel a certain way about the case, if the majority are going in a direction they probably will too)
"b" is an issue in general; dominant personalities will win over a lot of jurors even if their logic isn't sound, but because people don't feel like rocking the boat.
Conceptually I think it's great; but in practice in a capitalist society full of people who can't afford to take time off of work, I think juries tend to be less of a representation of your peers than they should.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
AuthenticM
Member
Juries are fine. But grand juries?
Fuck that shit. Determining if charges need to be laid or not is 100% a question of law, and only a prosecutor should do that.
Fuck that shit. Determining if charges need to be laid or not is 100% a question of law, and only a prosecutor should do that.
That only works when the defendant is from the majority ethnic group. A Black or Hispanic person is already disadvantaged by their skin tone, and a brown person has their name working against them. Jurors are influenced by preexisting biases even before they know a single detail of the case.
Hippo_PRIME
Member
Up until last year, I had never served on a jury, but was excited about the idea of it. I wanted to see the process from "the inside" and I felt a certain amount of pride at the idea of performing my civic duty.
Then I actually served and my confidence in the system was completely gutted. I watched two jurors make up arguments that neither lawyer had presented at trial and try to use their own arguments to let the defendant off in a pretty disturbing stalking case. They tried to willfully misinterpret statute and the judge's directions to us. One of the two engaged in a whole lot of victim blaming to try and give the defendant an out.
What should have been a 20 minute deliberation turned into five hours. I don't trust jury systems at all. The people put into them are emotional first, rational second. The two holdouts eventually came around, but only when it became clear that they were putting personal agendas first and the rest of us called them out on it. One of the two holdouts even had the gall to make snarky comments about the rest of us being "bullies" about it after we were released.
My personal opinion is that the jury system best serves the guilty. It seems wrong to me that the guilty are afforded the opportunity to get off the hook due to personal agendas that have nothing to do with the concept of Justice.
Then I actually served and my confidence in the system was completely gutted. I watched two jurors make up arguments that neither lawyer had presented at trial and try to use their own arguments to let the defendant off in a pretty disturbing stalking case. They tried to willfully misinterpret statute and the judge's directions to us. One of the two engaged in a whole lot of victim blaming to try and give the defendant an out.
What should have been a 20 minute deliberation turned into five hours. I don't trust jury systems at all. The people put into them are emotional first, rational second. The two holdouts eventually came around, but only when it became clear that they were putting personal agendas first and the rest of us called them out on it. One of the two holdouts even had the gall to make snarky comments about the rest of us being "bullies" about it after we were released.
My personal opinion is that the jury system best serves the guilty. It seems wrong to me that the guilty are afforded the opportunity to get off the hook due to personal agendas that have nothing to do with the concept of Justice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that many minorities facing criminal charges in the USA, opt for a plea deal rather than go to trial? Many times these individuals may even be innocent, but have no faith in the American judicial system. That alone tells me all I need to know of how impartial not just jurors are, but of the entire criminal justice system.
JustSomeone
Member
The jury's role is to decide what facts have been proven and which were not, not to interpret the law .
I think the jury system is fine. No, all the results aren't perfect, but neither would the results be perfect, if every trial was a bench trial. Judges are capable of being influenced by outside factors and public opinion, as well. While I'm certain the vast majority make all reasonable efforts to avoid improper bias, they're still human.
And, as others have said, the jury doesn't decide the law. The jury is given clear instructions, as to what the law is and are asked to determine the facts relevant thereto. If they have questions, then further instruction on the law is given.
Also, all Americans can waive their right to a jury, if they're really concerned and would rather have their fate decided solely by the Judge. So, at the end of the day, the accused has the ability to pick what they feel most comfortable with.
This is also a really good point. The Judge determines what evidence is admissible and presented to the Jury, but in order to do that, necessarily has to review all the evidence. Even if the Judge is aware and makes the ultimate determination that certain evidence is inadmissible (such as a prior criminal background), the Judge cannot erase that knowledge from their brain and it's actually very difficult to avoid bias, in that situation, because there's no way for the Judge to know if they'd feel differently, if they'd never reviewed that information.
And, as others have said, the jury doesn't decide the law. The jury is given clear instructions, as to what the law is and are asked to determine the facts relevant thereto. If they have questions, then further instruction on the law is given.
Also, all Americans can waive their right to a jury, if they're really concerned and would rather have their fate decided solely by the Judge. So, at the end of the day, the accused has the ability to pick what they feel most comfortable with.
This is also a really good point. The Judge determines what evidence is admissible and presented to the Jury, but in order to do that, necessarily has to review all the evidence. Even if the Judge is aware and makes the ultimate determination that certain evidence is inadmissible (such as a prior criminal background), the Judge cannot erase that knowledge from their brain and it's actually very difficult to avoid bias, in that situation, because there's no way for the Judge to know if they'd feel differently, if they'd never reviewed that information.
family_guy
Member
Wonder what would happen if the jury could not listen to or see defendants in person, but had to get all details of the trial by reading a transcript or hearing an audio recording that changes the voices of those involved. Also remove information like race unless it's relevant to the case, such as hate crimes.