Juries Must Go.

[The Atheist]

Outdated & absurd.

How a bunch of ill-informed amateurs are supposed to decide guilt & innocence has always astonished me, but things seem even worse now.

30 years ago, nearly all employers allowed employees to attend jury service on full pay. Now, it's the government and very few corporates, which leaves most juries made up of people whose compos is often not very mentis.

Housewives, the terminally unemployable and retirees. And even worse, public servants.

 

[JWideman]

If they were well-informed professionals, they wouldn't be a jury of peers. The goal is not to rule based on the jury's own knowledge, but on the EVIDENCE.

 

[theprestige]

Plus, the court has plenty of people: the prosecutor, the defender, and the judge, whose whole job is to make sure that the jury gets the relevant information.

Also, I can't say I care much for the implication that most housewives are fools.

Finally, it's not that the jury system is perfect. It's that other systems are generally even worse, justice-wise (not to mention mercy-wise).

 

[Alt+F4]

And even worse, public servants.

Gee, thanks. You have a good day too.

 

[Lonewulf]

So retirees, housewives, and people that aren't employable are all morons. And public servants are even worse.

Gee.

 

[plumjam]

Also, I can't say I care much for the implication that most housewives are fools.

I agree. It's really the husbands who are the fools, having to go out and work all day so that the housewives can sit at home and do nothing except watch Judge Judy, which, of course, only makes them better candidates for jury service (although it does wrinkle their skin a bit).

 

[The Atheist]

If they were well-informed professionals, they wouldn't be a jury of peers. The goal is not to rule based on the jury's own knowledge, but on the EVIDENCE.

Yes, but for that, the jury needs to be able to assimilate the evidence.

Plus, the court has plenty of people: the prosecutor, the defender, and the judge, whose whole job is to make sure that the jury gets the relevant information.

You what?

The prosecutor and defence are there to obfuscate as much as possible!

Also, I can't say I care much for the implication that most housewives are fools.

No problem, I'll do it. Stay-at-home housewives are thick.

If they have a small, child, that may not apply, but I don't expect to see many breastfeeding mothers on jury duty either.

Finally, it's not that the jury system is perfect. It's that other systems are generally even worse, justice-wise (not to mention mercy-wise).

Based upon what evidence?

Gee, thanks. You have a good day too.

Cheers!

At least you accept it.

 

[Harpyja]

Fan-tastic.

Any evidence to support your claim, or are you just going to spout off opinions?

 

[applecorped]

Outdated & absurd.

How a bunch of ill-informed amateurs are supposed to decide guilt & innocence has always astonished me, but things seem even worse now.

30 years ago, nearly all employers allowed employees to attend jury service on full pay. Now, it's the government and very few corporates, which leaves most juries made up of people whose compos is often not very mentis.

Housewives, the terminally unemployable and retirees. And even worse, public servants.

 

[Lonewulf]

The Atheist has to be the longest standing troll on this forum.

 

[Agatha]

Outdated & absurd.

How a bunch of ill-informed amateurs are supposed to decide guilt & innocence has always astonished me, but things seem even worse now.

30 years ago, nearly all employers allowed employees to attend jury service on full pay. Now, it's the government and very few corporates, which leaves most juries made up of people whose compos is often not very mentis.

Housewives, the terminally unemployable and retirees. And even worse, public servants.

My opinion of your views has altered, and not for the better.

 

[dudalb]

I would like to know what The Atheist would replace it with.
I am beginnng to think that The Atheist thinks that everybody in the world is an idiot..except for him.

 

[Twiler]

I say, educate the masses.

Pushing Philosophy would help, that way they wouldn't fall for logical fallacies so easily.

 

[lionking]

I agree with the idea of getting rid of juries, but not exactly for the reasons in the OP. I think juries have always been comprised of ill-informed amateurs.

 

[dudalb]

I say, educate the masses.

Pushing Philosophy would help, that way they wouldn't fall for logical fallacies so easily.

Easier said then done.
And a lot of Philosophy, IMHO, is full of logical fallacies.

 

[applecorped]

Served on a lot of juries have you?

 

[dudalb]

I agree with the idea of getting rid of juries, but not exactly for the reasons in the OP. I think juries have always been comprised of ill-informed amateurs.

Once again, what would you replace it with?

 

[applecorped]

I agree with the idea of getting rid of juries, but not exactly for the reasons in the OP. I think juries have always been comprised of ill-informed amateurs.

Served on a lot of juries have you?

Sorry Dud! A completely lame reply ruined by incompetence. What a good juror I'd make!!

 

[Cleon]

What he said.

 

[Twiler]

Easier said then done.
And a lot of Philosophy, IMHO, is full of logical fallacies.

Examples?