Juries Must Go.

[Travis]

I think that trial by jury works more often than it doesn't. Usually it is some high profile case that doesn't go the the way that outside observers themselves want that makes them issue these proclamations that the system is broken.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, so you agree with me?

No.

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

I can point out a hell of a lot more if you like. Bad results happen daily, but they often don't get a lot of publicity.

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.

Well put! (not the idiot part )

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.

As long as the jury has the ability to understand the evidence, that would be true.

I'm not convinced that happens often enough.

He is on the blunter end of the personality scale,...

Moi? I'm wounded!

This case has nothing to do with what you said.

Of course it does!

The vast majority of potential jurors were unavailable due to work/other commitments. Finding people with three months to spare at least skews the jury into a certain type of person, which is against the intent on juries.

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.

I think in many cases, especially complex ones, that's quite right. The number of clearly incorrect verdicts encourages me to think it's right, but without peer-reviewed studies of alternatives, I doubt we'll make much progress in the end, so it's worth discussing in the meantime.

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

It bothers me.

I must get Malbui to join and give a perspective on Froggy justice.

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.

Me too!

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited to remove quote of modded post.

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.

You might be right. Simplifying the process would also speed up the process making more jurors available.

 

[Lonewulf]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited to remove continuing bicker.

 

[Twiler]

Why don't you agree with me?

 

[The Atheist]

I think that trial by jury works more often than it doesn't.

I'm sure it gets the right verdict more often than not, but most cases are pretty cut and dried, so even morons can see it.

Usually it is some high profile case that doesn't go the the way that outside observers themselves want that makes them issue these proclamations that the system is broken.

Someone was mentioning logical fallacies, so it's nice of you to attempt ad hominem, but I'll just ignore it.

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

Do you mean the jury's verdict?

 

[Twiler]

[snip]

Someone was mentioning logical fallacies, so it's nice of you to attempt ad hominem, but I'll just ignore it.

Hnh? I thought you implied that logical fallacies didn't matter?

And thank you for referring to me as 'someone'. My self-esteem rises, and I launch my words with greater vigour.

 

[The Atheist]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited to remove continuing bicker.

Why don't you agree with me?

I think this is crap:

Pushing Philosophy would help

Feel free to start a thread on the subject.

 

[INRM]

IMHO think removing juries would do more harm than good...

IMHO I also think the person who started this post is acting like a troll...


INRM

 

[The Atheist]

Hnh? I thought you implied that logical fallacies didn't matter?[

They don't.

That's why I ignored it.

And thank you for referring to me as 'someone'. My self-esteem rises, and I launch my words with greater vigour.

Give it time - I might even think up a cute nickname for you.

 

[Twiler]

I don't think that 'Would teaching Philosophy improve the value of juries?' is sufficiently off-topic to warrant a new thread.

 

[The Atheist]

IMHO think removing juries would do more harm than good...

Yeah, well we know about humble opinions.

Much better than attempting to discuss something. We should always just let things stay as they are.

Change is so 20th century.

IMHO I also think the person who started this post is acting like a troll...

Your definition of troll being "someone whose opinions differ to mine".

I'm here discussing it, and aside from Tsukasa, I think I'm the only one who's actually posted anything which could be called evidence.

You do know that accusations of trolling are just ad hominem, don't you? My pal will be having a field day.

(And he must be delighted to move from "some bloke" to "my mate", eh?)

 

[Twiler]

They don't.

That's why I ignored it.

I will now ignore your arrogance and your dismissive attitude. Notice how I'm ignoring them?

Give it time - I might even think up a cute nickname for you.

No need for threats.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't think that 'Would teaching Philosophy improve the value of juries?' is sufficiently off-topic to warrant a new thread.

Given that you can't educate juries in philosophy (which isn't a proper noun, by the way) and you'd be talking about educating the entire population, I don't think it belongs in here. Your call, though - someone can always split it off if necessary.

 

[The Atheist]

I will now ignore your arrogance and your dismissive attitude. Notice how I'm ignoring them?

Now, if JREF had let me have the title Arrogant B'Stard as requested, there'd be no doubt.

No need for threats.

Didn't you mean "treats"?

 

[Travis]

Someone was mentioning logical fallacies, so it's nice of you to attempt ad hominem, but I'll just ignore it.

I didn't say that you were necessarily doing this. It's just been my experience with such people in real life that this is the case. I'm sure some of the objections to trial by jury are well thought and supported by evidence.

Do you have any evidence?

 

[technoextreme]

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

And how would you do it? I am pretty sure you are trying to suggest a deluded pipe dream fantasy because you will never have any group of people that will never be able to fully assimilate the evidence.

I'm sure it gets the right verdict more often than not, but most cases are pretty cut and dried, so even morons can see it.

Ahhhhh.... I get it now. You are a pompous arrogant *******. I'll be the first to point out that intelligence is not a sign of being able to rationally evaluate every possible field out there. It is dam near well impossible.

 

[sugarb]

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.

Although your post is very insulting to me personally, as I am a "housewife", disregarding that I must admit that, given the evolution of how convictions in certain crimes are now achieved, I and in fact most people I know (even professionals that you would rank above silly me) would be ill-equipped to deal with complex evidence.

An example: just the day before yesterday, there was a horrific crime in our area. Achieving a conviction is going to require evidence that would be difficult for me to understand. Given my personal experience, on an arson charge I would follow it rather easily. However, when it comes to the medical aspects (injuries that may or may not result in death), and DNA evidence I would, in fact, be in over my head unless it were simplified.

Now, I may be wrong, but I have to assume that a lot of very complex scientific evidence, during trial, is overly simplified so that jurors can understand it. For instance, if something were to be explained as having a more than 90% indication of the party being charged as guilty, I wouldn't know enough about what that meant to make a truly educated decision. If, on that same evidence, someone were to testify as to why the accused fell into that smaller percentage, thus proving innocence, in truth, I'd be more swayed by the more than 90%, which to me would seem overwhelming. I mean, everyone claims to be the exception, right? In other words, because I really wouldn't understand it, my decision would be an emotionally based one.

Certain trials, of course, wouldn't involve anything "over my head". However, I've never been certain in the fairness of having untrained medical professionals decide on a case of poisoning, for example. Barring evidence that is pretty simple to grasp (as in one local case in which a conviction was reached due to surveillance footage of the crime as well as diaries kept by the person convicted), I tend to agree with you.

As the abilities to collect evidence have evolved, something else in the process should have evolved, too. I'm just not sure what that is. A simple solution, though, to have more qualified juries, might be to simply have evening trials. Silly though that may sound, at least everyone could feel comfortable knowing housewives like myself weren't chosen just to fill a seat. Plus, you know, it'd be easier for the housewives with children to get off to school and all that, and leave her time to cook the man some breakfast. The courthouse would also be open, which would be more convenient for all the working stiffs...so, you know, we housewives wouldn't have to take care of complex things like vehicle registrations or taxes.

Of course, that wouldn't work for the retirees, right? Wheel of Fortune is an evening program, I assume. However, the terminally unemployable could still sleep til noon...

 

[WildCat]

I rather like the place: http://www.jurysrestaurant.com/

 

[technoextreme]

Although your post is very insulting to me personally, as I am a "housewife", disregarding that I must admit that, given the evolution of how convictions in certain crimes are now achieved, I and in fact most people I know (even professionals that you would rank above silly me) would be ill-equipped to deal with complex evidence.

An example: just the day before yesterday, there was a horrific crime in our area. Achieving a conviction is going to require evidence that would be difficult for me to understand. Given my personal experience, on an arson charge I would follow it rather easily. However, when it comes to the medical aspects (injuries that may or may not result in death), and DNA evidence I would, in fact, be in over my head unless it were simplified.

Now, I may be wrong, but I have to assume that a lot of very complex scientific evidence, during trial, is overly simplified so that jurors can understand it. For instance, if something were to be explained as having a more than 90% indication of the party being charged as guilty, I wouldn't know enough about what that meant to make a truly educated decision. If, on that same evidence, someone were to testify as to why the accused fell into that smaller percentage, thus proving innocence, in truth, I'd be more swayed by the more than 90%, which to me would seem overwhelming. I mean, everyone claims to be the exception, right? In other words, because I really wouldn't understand it, my decision would be an emotionally based one.

Certain trials, of course, wouldn't involve anything "over my head". However, I've never been certain in the fairness of having untrained medical professionals decide on a case of poisoning, for example. Barring evidence that is pretty simple to grasp (as in one local case in which a conviction was reached due to surveillance footage of the crime as well as diaries kept by the person convicted), I tend to agree with you.

As the abilities to collect evidence have evolved, something else in the process should have evolved, too. I'm just not sure what that is. A simple solution, though, to have more qualified juries, might be to simply have evening trials. Silly though that may sound, at least everyone could feel comfortable knowing housewives like myself weren't chosen just to fill a seat. Plus, you know, it'd be easier for the housewives with children to get off to school and all that, and leave her time to cook the man some breakfast. The courthouse would also be open, which would be more convenient for all the working stiffs...so, you know, we housewives wouldn't have to take care of complex things like vehicle registrations or taxes.

Of course, that wouldn't work for the retirees, right? Wheel of Fortune is an evening program, I assume. However, the terminally unemployable could still sleep til noon...

Where The Atheist's argument falls on it's ass is the fact that the vast majority of the United States would not know this either or at least not understand large chunks of it despite the intelligence. I am an electrical engineering major who graduated in the top 15% of his class. I am just as clueless as you are.

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't say that you were necessarily doing this. It's just been my experience with such people in real life that this is the case. I'm sure some of the objections to trial by jury are well thought and supported by evidence.

Do you have any evidence?

Of what?

And how would you do it? I am pretty sure you are trying to suggest a deluded pipe dream fantasy because you will never have any group of people that will never be able to fully assimilate the evidence.

No, I'm suggesting juries stop being used and an alternative found.

Ahhhhh.... I get it now. You are a pompous arrogant *******.

Correct - I just said that.

I'll be the first to point out that intelligence is not a sign of being able to rationally evaluate every possible field out there. It is dam near well impossible.

I don't think I've mentioned intelligence as a requirement have I?

I don't think it's a good idea to stack juries with incompetents, though.

Although your post is very insulting to me personally, as I am a "housewife", disregarding that I must admit that, given the evolution of how convictions in certain crimes are now achieved, I and in fact most people I know (even professionals that you would rank above silly me) would be ill-equipped to deal with complex evidence.

Then you certainly shouldn't be on a jury.

An example: just the day before yesterday, there was a horrific crime in our area. Achieving a conviction is going to require evidence that would be difficult for me to understand.

Why will it be difficult to understand?

Do you have all the evidence two days after the crime?

Given my personal experience, on an arson charge I would follow it rather easily. However, when it comes to the medical aspects (injuries that may or may not result in death), and DNA evidence I would, in fact, be in over my head unless it were simplified.

What part of DNA evidence do you find hard to understand?

For instance, if something were to be explained as having a more than 90% indication of the party being charged as guilty, I wouldn't know enough about what that meant to make a truly educated decision.

Do cases take place where chances are assessed at 90%? That would seem immediate grounds for reasonable doubt.

If, on that same evidence, someone were to testify as to why the accused fell into that smaller percentage, thus proving innocence, in truth, I'd be more swayed by the more than 90%, which to me would seem overwhelming. I mean, everyone claims to be the exception, right? In other words, because I really wouldn't understand it, my decision would be an emotionally based one.

Thus proving my point. If you'd see 90% as compelling evidence, I'd count that as a reason you shouldn't be on a jury.

A simple solution, though, to have more qualified juries, might be to simply have evening trials. Silly though that may sound, at least everyone could feel comfortable knowing housewives like myself weren't chosen just to fill a seat.

Sounds like an excellent plan to me, although while it might release a higher standard of juror, it won't address things like jury selection and challenges which are designed to skew juries towards preferred traits that some lawyers try to achieve.

The courthouse would also be open, which would be more convenient for all the working stiffs...so, you know, we housewives wouldn't have to take care of complex things like vehicle registrations or taxes.

Of course, that wouldn't work for the retirees, right? Wheel of Fortune is an evening program, I assume. However, the terminally unemployable could still sleep til noon...

Where The Atheist's argument falls on it's ass is the fact that the vast majority of the United States would not know this either or at least not understand large chunks of it despite the intelligence. I am an electrical engineering major who graduated in the top 15% of his class. I am just as clueless as you are.

Nope.

To refute my point in that way, you'd need to show that even really clever people with letters after their names don't have the ability to assimilate technical information.

Good luck with that.