• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Juries Must Go.

I've done a little surgery to remove some of the bickering here. I'm trying to allow the topic to be discussed though, so please refrain from personal attacks or from responding to personal attacks. It would be a shame if this thread had to be dumped to AAH.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Tricky said:
I've done a little surgery to remove some of the bickering here. I'm trying to allow the topic to be discussed though, so please refrain from personal attacks or from responding to personal attacks. It would be a shame if this thread had to be dumped to AAH.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
Click to expand...

Feel free to join and in save your red ink!
 
The Atheist said:
Of what?



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



Correct - I just said that.



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.



Then you certainly shouldn't be on a jury.



Why will it be difficult to understand?

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



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



Let's try it this way: given that the jury system probably isn't going to be done away with anytime soon, who do YOU think is qualified to serve on one? Which people would you trust to evaluate every type of evidence that could be presented? Are there certain professions you'd feel more comfortable having on juries?

And no, obviously I do not have "all the evidence" two days after the crime. However, I am intelligent enough to know, due to the nature of the crime, what types of evidence should be presented. I know nothing about DNA evidence, other than what I can read about. I have no training, no work experience, no nothing with regards to DNA evidence. Most people don't. Some people just won't admit it. I don't even watch television, so I can't pretend to be an expert based on any television shows.

I agree with you. I shouldn't be on a jury that would be required to interpret complex scientific evidence. Were I a person on trial, I wouldn't want someone with my limited knowledge to determine my fate. So...I don't commit crimes.

However, we have juries, in part, because we don't assume that the accused is, in fact, guilty. Therefore, I also feel that the ability to look at evidence objectively is important. Perhaps, then, it is better to not have people in a pool who consider themselves "experts". In that regard, were I on trial, I'd probably want myself as a juror, since at least I know I would do my best to understand simply because I know I'm not an expert.

Is this the part where I should thank you for convincing me that I would, in fact, do just fine on a jury? Or is this the part where we get back to the topic, which, I thought, was replacing the jury system with something else?

If we're going back to the topic, do you feel confident that judges are capable of understanding the same evidence we both agree I'm incapable of understanding?
 
All juries must go! Henceforth all trials will be decided by urban-dwelling, community activists based on the group-dynamic politics extant at the time; in their opinion, of course. No appeals either!

All hail the new Obama-jury and shoot the dissenters!
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
You do actually read the forum and not just hang out in the Forum Management Section? How the hell do you miss the countless idiots who have their PHD after being on this forum a year longer than me? All people are prone to falling to fallacies, ignorance, and prejudices. Having that letters after their name only means that they had the ability to assimilate technical information in one field and one field only. You can have two experts who say the exact opposite things and without the background to assimilate the technical information I would be in the same position sugarb would be.
 
Last edited:
I'll agree with the public employee thing. :D
Wait, they go all the way from ticket takers to judges...
Ya....equally idiots.
 
balrog666 said:
All juries must go! Henceforth all trials will be decided by urban-dwelling, community activists based on the group-dynamic politics extant at the time; in their opinion, of course. No appeals either!

All hail the new Obama-jury and shoot the dissenters!
Click to expand...

So Obama supporters are pro mob justice?

What exactly are you trying to get at here?
 
empeake said:
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.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that juries are NOT supposed to interpret law. They are supposed to evaluate the evidence in light of the judge's jury instructions on what the law IS. Hopefully one of our resident sharks will correct me if I am wrong.
 
the atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've heard this before!

JUDGE DREDD JUDGES JUSTICE
 
Ah, the horror of having someone of a lower social class than yourself decide something of importance. Outdated and absurd.
 
SezMe said:
My understanding is that juries are NOT supposed to interpret law. They are supposed to evaluate the evidence in light of the judge's jury instructions on what the law IS. Hopefully one of our resident sharks will correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I may have used the wrong terminology to express my opinion. I'll agree that juries are not supposed to interpret the law. I'll also agree that they are supposed to evaluate the evidence in light of the judge's instructions on what the law is. The key word here is "supposed". The main point that I wanted to make is that jurors, as most of us regular human beings, tend to make subjective, not objective, decisions, and this subjectivity negates the objectivity of the law.
 
Yes, empeake... but so do judges.

Indeed, the whole point of the jury system is the realization that judges, just like everybody else, tend to be influenced by emotions -- such as looking, from the height of a high social class and distinguished career, at the working-class defendant and thinking to themselves:

"Oh, THOSE sort of people... he's probably guilty. You know them -- emotional, no ability to think logically before committing a crime. Who needs the evidence? We know he did it."

This is the same sort of feeling as some in this thread express (and, undoubtably, some judges in jury trials secretly think), looking at a working-class jury:

"Oh, THOSE sort of people... they'll probably screw up the decision. You know them -- emotional, no ability to think logically before delivering a verdict. Who needs the jury? We know he did it."

As you can see, among other things, the jury system is a protection to the defendants from the prejudices of the upper class towards the lower class. With a jury, the worst these prejudices can do is make the bien pensants angry at the jury. Without a jury, such prejudices can easily get innocent people 20 years.
 
Doesn't a lot of this also ignore the fact that no one has to have a trial by jury? Yes, one has a right to be judged by a jury of one's peers, but, like many rights, this can be waived. When you waive this right, you are then tried by a judge.

So, if you think that a jury of your peers is not qualified to try you, you can always choose to be tried by a judge instead. Presumably, most defendents are advised about this by their lawyers and the court system before it goes to trial.*

ETA Why take away this option when there are clearly some people who want it?
 
I'm surprised to see that people here are actually defending the jury system. I there's anything that I expect people in this forum to be familiar with, it's that people in general are very bad at figuring out what conclusions you can draw from a given piece of evidence. If people were good at it, this forum wouldn't even exist.

I find Lonewulf's reaction particularly weird. The Atheist's comment about housewives and retired people is a little bit provocative, but including a mildly provocative statement in a post doesn't make the poster a troll.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Yes, empeake... but so do judges.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't judges be less susceptible to subjective decisions? As I see it, not anyone can be a judge. A person must go through certain types of education, training and qualification before becoming a judge, and I would think that proof of objectiveness is a requirement for the post.

Also, wouldn't a panel of judges reduce the risk of subjective rulings? No system would be perfect, but if the Supreme Court handles the most important decisions of the nation this way, I suppose it is the lesser evil.

I pose these thoughts as questions, not as a refutation, since I'm quite ignorant of how the legal system actually works, and I don't believe TV lawyer shows are a very good guide.
 
Last edited:
Edges said:
Doesn't a lot of this also ignore the fact that no one has to have a trial by jury? Yes, one has a right to be judged by a jury of one's peers, but, like many rights, this can be waived. When you waive this right, you are then tried by a judge.

So, if you think that a jury of your peers is not qualified to try you, you can always choose to be tried by a judge instead. Presumably, most defendents are advised about this by their lawyers and the court system before it goes to trial.*

ETA Why take away this option when there are clearly some people who want it?
Click to expand...

Maybe in the USA, but not everywhere.
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of this can just as easily be used to justify eliminating the right to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom