Juries Must Go.

[Bikewer]

The old saw among attorneys is: "If your case hinges on the evidence, you want a trial by judge only. If personalities are involved, you want a jury."

 

[dudalb]

The problem with a lay panal is you have the worst of both worlds: The same problems you do with jury selection of people wanting to get out of it, or if it is voluntary you would still have the problem of "US vs Them". Yes, they might be ordinary citizens to start with, but the instant they become a professional jurist they become them.
I am afrad this is another example of "People are too damn stupid to decide on the merits of the issue, therefore a elite needs to take over and rule".
If you really think that, then just be honest and say that the whole concept of democracy is flawed and needs to be replaced.

 

[The Atheist]

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/...ferable-to-jury-service-declares-citizen.html

That's really good!

The old saw among attorneys is: "If your case hinges on the evidence, you want a trial by judge only. If personalities are involved, you want a jury."

Ah, but that's only anecdotal...

The problem with a lay panal is you have the worst of both worlds: The same problems you do with jury selection of people wanting to get out of it, or if it is voluntary you would still have the problem of "US vs Them". Yes, they might be ordinary citizens to start with, but the instant they become a professional jurist they become them.

If you say so.

I see no reason why an appointed panel of examining - let's call them magistrates - couldn't be seen to be impartial.

Even better, unlike juries, magistrates would have a track record subject to independent scrutiny. If a bias became apparent, whoosh, off he goes.

I am afrad this is another example of "People are too damn stupid to decide on the merits of the issue, therefore a elite needs to take over and rule".
If you really think that, then just be honest and say that the whole concept of democracy is flawed and needs to be replaced.

Well, instead of letting me state my own positions, I guess you could make some up.

I do like the fact that you've chosen democracy and managed to be elitist all in one go.

Firstly, when it's a question of wanting the very best, I'm quite happy to be elitist. I want the best doctor, the best butcher, the best plumber, and I sure as hell want the best legal system. If you want to be a man of the people and call that elitist, it's a hat I wear most comfortably.

As to democracy being flawed, of course it is, but it's the best available method of governing, and we have some pretty solid evidence to support that. If there were genuine options to explore as an alternative, I'd be first to recommend having a look at changing them, but since there aren't I'm quite happy with democracy. It's also got nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

 

[SezMe]

Even better, unlike juries, magistrates would have a track record subject to independent scrutiny. If a bias became apparent, whoosh, off he goes.

I don't think it's quite that easy. Suppose Joe Blow loses his case then goes to....um, where does he appeal?....and claims the panel was biased. Is THAT heard by another panel? What is the basis for a decision? And so on. It could be very messy.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't think it's quite that easy. Suppose Joe Blow loses his case then goes to....um, where does he appeal?....and claims the panel was biased. Is THAT heard by another panel? What is the basis for a decision? And so on. It could be very messy.

Appeals would not change at all - Appeal court, Supreme court. Claims of bias, as are claims against judges, would need pretty solid evidence.

 

[Euromutt]

I just have no idea what you're on about, having already contradicted yourself as noted in my first paragraph of the last post.

Do feel free to explain how and where I contradicted myself, because I don't see it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Atheist is psychic!

Justice Minister Simon Power's proposals to revamp the court system - which he believes is being slowed by lawyers milking the legal aid system by encouraging repeat appearances - have outraged defence lawyers.
Mr Power wants to see judges alone - as opposed to 12 jurors - deliver verdicts for people facing charges punishable by less than three years' jail - further upsetting lawyers who believe that could breach the Bill of Rights by denying defendants the right to be tried by their peers. At present, those facing sentences of three months or more can choose a jury trial.
Figures provided to the Herald by Mr Power yesterday show that having judges alone decide such cases, in combination with proposed changes to how charges are laid, would save about 1100 jury trials a year.

Linky.

 

[Bob Klase]

Linky.

Mr Power wants to see judges alone - as opposed to 12 jurors - deliver verdicts for people facing charges punishable by less than three years' jail - further upsetting lawyers who believe that could breach the Bill of Rights by denying defendants the right to be tried by their peers. At present, those facing sentences of three months or more can choose a jury trial.

Not that I agree with him, but the constitution doesn't mention 3 months, or 3 years (in fact it says "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury). So at some point there must have been lawyers making the same argument- that the Bill of Rights would be breached by denying defendants the right to be tried by their peers if we didn't allow jury trials for those facing sentences of less than 3 months.

So it seems that some defendants are already denied their right to a jury trial and the only question is how many more should be denied.

 

[marting]

I was a juror in a fairly complex trial involving many weeks of testimony and listening to wires. There were half dozen defendants. Amongst the jury there were engineers, managers, DoD contractors, and a welfare office supervisor. I was impressed with the seriousness and detail with which deliberations proceeded. By combining notes, memories and observations we were able to understand and determine a fairly complex set of facts. Based on that experience, if I was on trial (and innocent) I would rather have a jury decide the case facts.

As an aside, if your employer doesn't cover jury duty you are not excused except in trials expecting to take more than two weeks. We were paid $40/day plus mileage