General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI've said before, and I'll say again - the Jury System needs to go...
OJ
Casey Anthony
..and now this
Three-judge tribunals seem to work just fiine in Western Europe.
Added on edit: I'm not referring to the DU Jury system
valerief
(53,235 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Lot's of good, decent folks live there.
That said, I now live in Nebraska.
Jawja
(3,233 posts)When Global Warming influences the sea levels. Florida is eventually toast; and good riddance.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)A pool of individuals who've at least received the equivalent of Para-Legal training, and who will make some effort to follow the law.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)In terms of trial assignment, they'd be randomly assigned, with the caveat that they'd recuse for individuals they know, etc.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)They could be appointed positions, hired by the chief judge, or competitive application positions.
LOL.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)and have been educated in all areas, especially other cultures.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Note: I do not mean to insult broccoli.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)...acting on objections, deciding what's admissible, etc. Professional jurors wouldn't have that burden.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But I do like your idea of separating the jobs - you have jurors, who are essentially judges, who are trained as lawyers like today's judges are, and who have one job: decide the verdict as fairly as possible. Then you have a new role, that of moderator, who manages the courtroom and facilitates the trial.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)My argument is not really with you, and my anger is not directed at you or the others in this thread.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Dangerous ground you're trodding there.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)We don't have titles of nobility or an institutionalized class system.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I.. errm.. If you can't see the irony of your post in light of what you proposed..
*shakes my head*
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)My dislike of the jury system will be largely limited to useless ranting.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Lose the jury system. If you look at the stats, acquittals are more common with juries than judges. That means more wrongfully accused are incarcerated by judges. It is better for a few guilty to walk than for an innocent person to be locked up. juries are imperfect, but so are judges.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I was voir dire'd for another murder trial on another occasion, and voir dire'd for a civil suit and a robbery on still another occasion. I had a friend do time for something that to this day I'm convinved was a wwrongful conviction. I see nothing good about the jury system. Sorry.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)should never be on a jury; having known of a few definately unqualified to decide results of any case. More time and effort should be given in jury selection; a six person jury is too small for a high profile trial.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)n
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)..you should have to have some training to participate in the legal system. Lives are at stake there as well.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)crafty lawyers will pack juries with the lowest info jurors they can get. They can tell, too.
If lawyers did not select juries, but they were randomly selected--it would be far better. Much more fair. Otherwise just go to judges. This isn't really a good example of people power. The people are easily manipulated.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)corrupt. This is a profession that should be held to the highest standards; it can be a matter of life or death or justice.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I have had occasion to observe and I see it. The way it works now gives them too many opportunities to game the system. People would be appalled if they really knew how vulnerable we all are to corrupt lawyers and miscarriages of justice. We are all vulnerable.
I so wish it had turned out differently in this case, but maybe it will wake people up to the problems.
RegexReader
(416 posts)reflect that.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)On an unrelated note - I see the Marlins logo -- have you been to the new stadium?
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)The product on the field would be a different story.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and one of the main reasons is the way they can pack juries. "Jury selection" is not random. It's really amazing to watch in action--how a lawyer can win mainly by profiling the jurors and selecting for those who will win his/her case. The first potential jurors to go in the selection process will be the smart looking ones, the professionals, the nurses, doctors, academics etc.
They look for the gullible, the lo-info, the easily manipulated.
I would be fine with 3-judge tribunals for criminal & big money cases, with Judge Judy for all the small stuff.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Exactly right!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--people don't always believe me when I say that, and they cling to a system that really is not working very well. Either we need to have a different selection system or go to judges.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)The jury system gets some verdicts wrong. EOS.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)There are still issues upon which we can disagree while, at our core, supporting the goals of the Democratic party.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Not saying that to cut you off or to stop the discussion; just putting my own feeling about it out there.
And I DO understand why some people are sick of the jury system.
There are lots of things about our judicial system that I think most fair people are uneasy about.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by devine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
That is why I'm your king.
(even in moments of despair, I attempt to find humor)
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)"I was an emperor just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me" they'd put me away!
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?
The scene ends as OmahaBlueDog rides off in disgust.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Thanks! A bright spot in an otherwise depressing evening!
Response to FarCenter (Reply #34)
LuvNewcastle This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
ecstatic
(32,705 posts)judges who work in cooperation with private prisons and get kickbacks for each person they lock up.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)For those who don't know....
http://www.ibtimes.com/kids-cash-trial-ciavarella-found-guilty-racketeering-tax-fraud-cleared-extortion-bribery-charges
The trial of Mark Ciavarella, a former Pennsylvania judge who has been charged with racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations, drew to a close on Friday with the jury returning a guilty verdict.
Ciavarella was found guilty, Friday, of 12 of 39 counts of corruption filed against him, including racketeering and fraud charges.
The jury at the federal courthouse in Scranton returned to U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Edwin M. Kosiks courtroom with the finding that Ciavarella was guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy and a host of tax fraud charges. The former judge was, however, cleared of extortion, bribery and honest services wire fraud charges.
The former judge faces a maximum sentence of 157 years in prison.
JVS
(61,935 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)If one doesn't like a thread, disagree with it or start one's own.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Jodi Arias should have been acquitted, but that jury was not sequestered and Maricopa County is one hell of a corrupt place.
The jury screwed up with O.J., also with Robert Blake.
It sure as hell screwed up with Zimmerman.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I always took that verdict as an editorial on the behavior of Bonnie Lee Bakley (sp?).
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The lawyers (and the judge?) get to dismiss a lot of candidate jurors and lots of jurors take themselves off the panel.
The jurors are only allowed to consider the evidence presented by the lawyers. Generally they can't ask questions or follow up on loose ends in the lawyers presentations or witnesses testimony.
Lawyers usually spend more time playing to emotions that presenting facts and making logical arguments.
I've served on a jury in a trial where the both lawyers seemed incapable of a coherent thought.
I also know a person serving time who was incompetently represented by a lawyer who was a friend of a family member, and not really a criminal defense lawyer.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)IMO. I let my bias of it being an all female jury would minimum have a manslaughter charge against him. I was wrong.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Speaking of judges and tribunals -- what's the Supreme Court's record look like the past 10-20 years?
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Someone (I can't remember who) said about the jury system that you're being tried by "..the only people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty."
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)places.
What is the ratio of cases that juries have screwed up to the cases they've gotten right?
And why do you think judges are so much better? Ever hear of "Kids for Cash"?
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)..so we'll just disagree here.
What is the ratio of cases that juries have screwed up to the cases they've gotten right? Honestly, I have no statistics. I wouldn't know where to go. I would hope that the ratio is higher than the ratio of judges sending children into virtual slavery, or we're all in trouble.
As you say, the constitution would never be amended, so the discussion is moot.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)on the basis of three cases whose outcomes you disliked.
Personally I like the jury system.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)We'll have to disagree here.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)But it's better if juries get it wrong now and then than to give up that right.
It would be better of Florida did something about sleazy defense lawyers playing a smoke and mirrors game, disregarding the facts, and helping killers walk free.
dsc
(52,162 posts)but in this case it is the law that is the problem, not the jury. The jury correctly applied a badly written law. Any law which treats the affirmative defense of self defense as something that needs disproven beyond reasonable doubt is gong to lead to a lot of acquitals of guilty people.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Strongly disagree. You can't do away with the jury system due to a few outcomes in high-profile cases.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)If the laws weren't so fucked up in the first place, I think the jury system would work just fine.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)To me, on its most basic level, the startling Zimmerman verdict -- and the case and trial that preceded it -- is above all a blunt reminder of the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials are not searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They never have been. Our rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights preclude it. Our trials are instead tests of only that limited evidence a judge declares fit to be shared with jurors, who in turn are then admonished daily, hourly even, not to look beyond the corners of what they've seen or heard in court.
Trials like the one we've all just witnessed in Florida can therefore never fully answer the larger societal questions they pose. They can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger. In the end, they teach only what each of us as students are predisposed to learn. They provide no closure, not to the families or anyone else, even as they represent the close of one phase of the rest of the lives of the people involved. They are tiny slivers of the truth of the matter, the perspective as narrow as if you were staring at the horizon with blinders on, capable only of seeing what was not intentionally blocked from view.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)If "we the people" are uneducated and biased by religion/race/gender/class conditioning, that conditioning takes precedence and the jury system, which in theory is fair, will fail.