Juries Must Go.

[The Atheist]

Fan-tastic.

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

No, I always have evidence: the Philip Field trial.

The court spent a fortnight trying to empanel 12 jurors capable of attending a three-month trial, and given that they're one down within the first two days, I give the trial no chance of proceeding to the end.

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

What an idiotic statement.

Still, it's so much easier than trying to argue against it.

I would like to know what The Atheist would replace it with.

I don't know.

That's why I thought it would make a good discussion subject, this being a discussion forum and all.

I am beginnng to think that The Atheist thinks that everybody in the world is an idiot..except for him.

Nah, not everyone, just the ones who don't agree with me.

I say, educate the masses.

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

Another outstanding response!

Just for your information, regarding education, intelligence and knowing the difference between logical fallacies and things that actually matter, I always accept all challenges and challengers.

If you can't accept that the OP is overly rhetorical, then you should probably go away. If you want to argue the point, try doing so.

 

[Lonewulf]

What an idiotic statement.

Still, it's so much easier than trying to argue against it.

Everyone's a blithering idiot besides you. That's pretty much the crux of your argument.

How can I argue against that? It's just one huge ad hominem, that you're proud of espousing.

I'd rather not waste my time.

 

[applecorped]

If you want to argue the point, try doing so.

You argue it. You brought it up.

 

[The Atheist]

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

That sums it up, yep. Retirees aren't always morons, but they're often biased and don't understand science at all.

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).

Haha! Brilliant!

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.

Correct.

There are quite a few other reasons why I think the idea is outdated and stupid, but I went with the cheap shots first.

 

[The Atheist]

Everyone's a blithering idiot besides you. That's pretty much the crux of your argument.

How can I argue against that? It's just one huge ad hominem, that you're proud of espousing.

I'd rather not waste my time.

You really do make me chuckle.

You care so little and see it all as such a waste of time that you've now made three posts in the thread.

You're a legend!

You argue it. You brought it up.

I have, do keep up.

 

[Twiler]

[snip]

Another outstanding response!

Just for your information, regarding education, intelligence and knowing the difference between logical fallacies and things that actually matter, I always accept all challenges and challengers.

If you can't accept that the OP is overly rhetorical, then you should probably go away. If you want to argue the point, try doing so.

Oh, so you agree with me?

 

[dudalb]

Examples?

I would not care to defend a lot of Rosseau or Neitzsche said, for instance.
I am not saying the critical thinking should not be taught...I strongly think it should....but I admit I am not a big fan of formal philisophy,which often becomes as full of woo as religion.

 

[Arus808]

I've served on a jury. And by no means was anyone on that jury a housewife or a fool. One was a doctor. Another a coach of a high school basketball team. One a stay at home mom who was homeschooling her children and many other RESPECTABLE professional people.

sorry but your argument holds no water. As long as the jury is given good instructions, on the law, the charges/counts and what they have to decide on (the evidence and testimony) jury's have worked for the judicial system

Lovely how you point out 1 case...when THOUSANDS of cases go on each day without a word about it being a "bad jury".

 

[empeake]

In my opinion, the main problem is that the vast majority of jurors (as a representative subset of the normal population) are not equipped to interpret laws and evidence objectively. A charismatic prosecutor or defender can have more influence than facts among some jurors; others may be swayed by their own personal experiences; some may have their thoughts clouded by the impression that the accused "looks guilty"; etc.

I think decisions reached by a judge or a panel of judges tend to be fairer. Imagine the result of the Dover trial if a jury had been involved?

BTW, I am an idiot, but I'm working hard to become a better one.

 

[Twiler]

I would not care to defend a lot of Rosseau or Neitzsche said, for instance.

Given that older philosophical views have been replaced with newer philosophical views, a study of philosophy would necessarily involve a consideration of why the older ones were rejected, which would involve a consideration of their flaws.

Ideally, rather than just reciting the thoughts of a particular philosopher, you'd give out a number of conflicting viewpoints, along with the reasons they were based upon.

EDIT: Oh, you changed your post. Well, I don't know what formal philosophy is.

 

[Arus808]

You forget that you have to convince 12 people or sway all 12. You can be the most flamboyant lawyer, but if your case rests on "believe him, he's innocent" and the other side has EVIDENCE to support their claims, I dont care if you are wearing a $5000 suit; the evidence and testimony is where the guilt or not guilty verdicts come from.

 

[dudalb]

I just don't think the teaching of Critical Thinking skills should be tied in with a full scale course in philosophy.
A lot of philosophy..including modern philisophy...has as much do to with reality as a Medieval Theological argument about how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.

 

[Twiler]

I just don't think the teaching of Critical Thinking skills should be tied in with a full scale course in philosophy.
A lot of philosophy..including modern philisophy...has as much do to with reality as a Medieval Theological argument about how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.

Oddly enough, I think that does have something to do with reality. The question is, 'How can non-material beings relate to material concepts?'. Answer: They don't.

 

[plumjam]

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

Not the case IMO.
He starts a lot of interesting threads, has a sense of humour, and is never dull. He is on the blunter end of the personality scale, but most of the time that makes him more entertaining, particularly if you're someone not wanting to be hidebound by political correctness.

 

[Harpyja]

No, I always have evidence: the Philip Field trial.

The court spent a fortnight trying to empanel 12 jurors capable of attending a three-month trial, and given that they're one down within the first two days, I give the trial no chance of proceeding to the end.

This case has nothing to do with what you said.

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

Emphasis mine.

You were (or, "you appeared to have been," as I have no way of reading your mind and can only judge on what you have stated already) stating that juries and jury members themselves were incompetent when it comes to judging evidence. Not that the jury selection itself is inefficient and needs to be changed.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Studies show that when the jury is told to start from the highest possible conviction and move down, as opposed to starting from the lowest possible conviction and moving up, the defendant will be much more likely to be convicted of a greater offence. The judge tells them which way to go.

I don't have much data other than that. Also, there is this study on judge versus jury convictions:

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]This study uses a new criminal case data set to partially replicate Kalven and Zeisel's classic study of judge-jury agreement. The data show essentially the same rate of judge-jury agreement as did Kalven and Zeisel for cases tried almost 50 years ago. This study also explores judge-jury agreement as a function of evidentiary strength (as reported by both judges and juries), evidentiary complexity (as reported by both judges and juries), legal complexity (as reported by judges), and locale. Regardless of which adjudicator's view of evidentiary strength is used, judges tend to convict more than juries in cases of "middle" evidentiary strength. Judges tend to acquit more than juries in cases in which judges regard the evidence favoring the prosecution as weak. Judges tend to convict more than juries in cases in which judges regard the evidence favoring the prosecution as strong. Rates of adjudicator agreement are thus partly a function of which adjudicator's view of evidentiary strength is used, a result not available to Kalven and Zeisel, who were limited to judges' views of the evidence. We find little evidence that evidentiary complexity or legal complexity help explain rates of judge-jury disagreement. Rather, the data support Kalven-Zeisel's explanation that judges have a lower conviction threshold than juries. Local variation exists among the sites studied. The influences of juror race, sex, and education are also considered. [/FONT]

Linky.

I am actually interested in whether the adversarial system is a good one in the first place.

 

[plumjam]

My dad just retired after 30-something years as a criminal defence lawyer in the UK. Most of his cases were in a magistrates court (usually a panel of three of them). His more serious cases would go to the Crown Court. His view is that a judge is better than a jury, in that, among other things, the judge understands the complexities of the law better.
Due to his experience in this I defer to his opinion.

The only obvious objection I can see to getting rid of juries is that it's far easier to bribe or intimidate one human being than it is to do so to twelve.

 

[Lonewulf]

You really do make me chuckle.

You care so little and see it all as such a waste of time that you've now made three posts in the thread.

You're a legend!

Yes, because making posts on an internet forum truly takes much energy. I invest a lot to make posts.

Does it truly take you that much to make short-length posts?

Edited to remove rule 12 violations.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[geni]

His view is that a judge is better than a jury, in that, among other things, the judge understands the complexities of the law better.
Due to his experience in this I defer to his opinion.

The problem with that argument is that if the law has become to complex to explain to juries we need to simplify the law rather than replace juries.

 

[tomwaits]

What if the conviction depended on whether a particular action can be considered "reasonable" given the circumstances? Should the judge decide that?