"A jury of your peers"

[SoCalDem]

After watching a piece about Martha Stewart today, this phrase kept going through my head.. I fear that there is no such thing anymore.. Martha Stewart is (was?) a billionaire. A jury of HER peers would be something to behold..

I am sure that when the justice system was set up , a jury of YOUR peers was a good thing, considering how a common man would have a hard time getting justice by the higher classes, so the "peer thing" was good.. A common man on trial for robbery or assault would have a fairer chance of justice if people "just like him" were to judge him..

Most trials took place as an everyday event. There were surely the "notorious criminals" in every era, but for the most part, probably the only people who went to court to watch trials were the victims, families of the victims, local townspeople who just happened to be curious, or in need of shelter from bad weather.. Most people probably did not even know about the trials, nor did they care.

To be fair, the "crime of the century" trials have always occurred from time to time, but the radio and press coverage of them satisfied most people. Probably the juries in each of them were actually peers , anyway.

With the advent of the televised coverage of trials and the hoopla during the lead ins to the trials, I seriously doubt that a "fair" trial is even possible anymore. The jury of peers is probably impossible as well.

If you are a poor minority defendant, you will never get a jury of your peers, any more than the billionaire will get one of his peers. Poor people will always be judged by people who are "above" them in status. Rich people will always be judged by people who are way "below" them in status.

The big difference though, is that with the rich defendant, the media will have had months and months to air anything and everything they can find about the "rich criminal". The combination of jealousy, envy and scorn that is aimed at the one soon to be tried in court cannot be quantified. Finding a jury that is truly not aware of the facts of the case is impossible these days.

Martha Stewart may have done something wrong, but more wrong has been done TO her than BY her. During the time she was preparing for court, there has been a movie that portrayed her as an evil , spiteful,greedy woman. Maybe she IS all of those things, but the non-stop coverage of her life could not help but find its way into the minds of the very people who will be asked to judge her.

Poor people who often have lousy lawyers, who only want to "clear their cases", do not get a fair shake either. They may not have the wall-to-wall television coverage, but they suffer too, due to the nature of the jury selection.

The jury selection for the most reprehensible of crimes (Scott Peterson, OJ,people who murder their kids,sexual molestation, etc) is difficult too.. The media is all over these like white on rice. There is no avoiding the "facts" that ooze from our TVs , no matter which channel we tune to. When in any other era have the various lawyers and pundits elbowed each other to get to the cameras, so they can argue their cases to the public, before the trial? How can this be justice? The cases get so much pre-trial attention, that after millions of dollars, and thousands of hours, some cannot even be tried in the communities where the crimes occurred..Changes of venue , to try and find an untainted jury pool, is ridiculous with all the mass media. The only change of venue that would work, is to a different planet..

Our courts have turned into entertainment....just like everything else.. And it's a very BAD thing.

[WillParkinson]

1. No wonder this one dropped like a rock!

It is well thought out, well written and describes the state of 'news' today. It's all about sensationalism. If it gives ratings it's GOOD! There is no time for fluff pieces. It used to be 'sex' sells. Now it's sex, murder, mayhem, dismemberment, etc. There is no such thing as 'good' news anymore. At least not to any degree.

They asked on our news the other day, "Can famous people get a fair trial"? Considering how many of them get off because they have high-power legal aid I think the accurate question is why do they get off more often than not?

The rich get a fair trial because they can afford to pay for it. The poor get a public defender who, more often than not, does not care and only wants to get into something bigger.

I think this was an excellent post and it's worthy of being

BUMPED!

[Aristus]

2. Sheesh, SoCalDem, did NOBODY weight in with a reply?

Great post, BTW. It has been said a number of times, especially during the debacle of the OJ trial, that the only way to remedy this situation is to use professional juries. You know, judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals who would not only keep their minds on the task at hand, but also who would not be fooled by lawyers tricks and lame defense strategies. We should to more to investigate the possibilities of professional juries.

[SoCalDem]

3. I think Canada imposes a total blackout until after the trial

That "might" work, but I would not put it past "Ito-esque" judges to brag to their pals, and leaks to occur..

It's so disturbing.. I would rather not hear about the mutilation of that poor young woman and her baby.. Why is it necessary for me to be told of it.. I would prefer that her parents not even know.:(

It's crass voyeurism at its very worst :(

[BigDaddyLove]

4. I too must say that this was well written and deserves to be........

discussed, thought I don't necessarily believe that our court system has turned into entertainment. The handfull of cases that do fit that bill don't (in my mind), erase the good that's being done in hundreds of court rooms every day by very talented and well meaning people all over the country.

To just lump every case in with Martha, Peterson and O.J., is disingenuous, and too simple an analysis.

[SoCalDem]

5. Poor, everyday people have just as big a problem

They may not lose billions of dollars, but they are more likely to go to jail and do hard time, because too LITTLE effort goes into their defense and jury selection..

Lots of times the smalltime lawbreaker gets a lot of time in jail, because they have overworked and/or inexperienced lawyers.. Our tax dollars pay for their representation, and then again for their incarceration..

When it's for drugs, it's especially bad, because they often come out of jail, having had no treatment, and after rubbing shoulders with some really bad guys..

[BigDaddyLove]

6. Maybe.......

I just think that that's the focus a lot of people have, that poor people are always shafted because they're poor...that they go to jail a lot more often than they should. I think this idea discounts a lot of hard working people who do the work they do because they believe in the system.

I tend to think that a lot of people go to jail because they're guilty; though sure, if they had a lot of money they'd get off a lot easier.

Like O.J....guilty, but not convicted because he could afford a 'dream team'...how fair is that?

[SoCalDem]

7. That's my point.. a jury of his peers.."really rich people"

might have seen through the histrionics..

No one gets a jury of their peers.. rich or poor..

[BigDaddyLove]

8. With this point I agree...........

I was just disagreeing with (what I now assume to be my own projected ideas about) what you said about the system as a whole, not just the jury selection process.

[moof]

9. Paid professional jurists.

Jurys have always been a weak link in the American justice system.

The entire justice system & much of the Constitution need to be updated, but not for another 100 years or so.

There needs to be a profession devoted to judging guilt or innocence,
that has some certification of knowledge of the law without the risk associated with one Judge's prejudices tainting a verdict.

So a group of professionals nearly as well trained as Lawyers that never see the person standing trial. Just because the accused has the right to speak to the jury does not mean jury needs to see the accused.

Till society sheds more of it's prejudices then in a court of law the more information that has no value other than to impact those prejudices either for good or bad are better necer brought into the deliberation.

[BigDaddyLove]

11. I think you're right........

only I have to wonder why the system was set up in the fashion that it was in the first place with regard to being tried by a 'jury of one's peer's'.

[SoCalDem]

12. If you go back to the time it was instituted

the only "educated" people were upper class people who probably employed or were owed money by the "common" people who would be more likely to end up in the "justice system".. It would have been little or no justice to have these same people "judge them".. It made sense to enhance the fairness, but having a jury of common people who might have some understanding of what their life was like, to be the ones to control their fate..

A guy who broke into a shop and stole food for his family would be judged more fairly by people who were not rich or shopkeepers themselves..

Likewise an upper crusty guy who embezzled money from his bank, might be judged "better" by fellow upper crusties who could understand the balance sheets and who could read..

There were lots of people back then who could not read, and could barely sign their own name..

The "peer"ish part at least put a "nice face" on the justice system.. It probably never really worked that well then either, but at least the defendant could look at the jury and see that they were people just like him/her and could at least think that they got a fair trial..

[tom_paine]

10. Hey, don't knock entretainment

From a sickly grotesque point of view, the point of view of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika, the downfall of the Old American Reublic and the rise of Totalitarian Orwellian Empire has been QUITE entertaining.

[Solomon]

13. Nope. I disagree. The thought of "professional" juries scares the

living daylights out of me. Smacks of elitism. Celebrities do not get fair trials today because pretrial the jury is deluged with inadmissible evidence that would never be allowed in court. It's not fair to say that it's unfair that rich people get off because they can afford better attorneys. Why bitch when the system works the way its supposed to. We should make a better effort to get the system to work better for the poor as well, than bitch that someone "got off" because of better lawyers. Besides, I just love how people who just listen to sound bites on the "news", know better than the juries who have to sit there and watch everything. It's now to the point that a rich person is guilty because he had good lawyers. This is absurd. Why don't we just do away with trials, eh? If a rich person is charged, then he must be guilty, right?

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see less of a problem with poor folks being on juries than rich folks. Rich folks usually get off jury duty anyway.

[BigDaddyLove]

14. I really like your points........

but with respect to the statement about how when a rich person is considered guilty just because he has good lawyers; I think on the one hand this is a good observation, but on the other hand is a result of all of us watching O.J. walk when it was fairly clear that he was guilty (at least to me); and only walking because he had (and could afford), good attorneys.

[Solomon]

16. I hear you BigDaddy, but OJ is where you and I part company.

I was able to watch a good portion of that trial, and the jury did the right thing. Notice I did NOT say that he was innocent. But the point of a prosecution is to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime, and there were doubts all over that one, chiefly owing to the fact that the police planted too much evidence. If they had been patient and not tried to make sure they would get him by planting evidence, they would have won. I don't even want to comment on the snowjob done by the media as in "mountains of evidence" when the jury itself was straining to look through microscopes to see the "mountain of evidence." And how much daily "evidence" never got into the courtroom but infected the minds of america, hunh? The bloody clothes in the washing machine, the digging tools they found in his truck, etc.etc.etc. Don't mean to start an argument over O.J. Just saying to you that the jury did not say he was innocent. What they said was the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't get more reasonable doubt than planted evidence.

[ret5hd]

15. Scares me too...

the system we have today at least allows the "possibility" of a juror
refusing to convict based on the inherent unjustness of a law (jury nullification, which, interestingly enough is being discussed on another thread today).

so, what will those that profess to favor professional jurors say when
mass arrests of protestors start? and professional jurors start sending
them to prison? Or when reading DU is labeled a crime?

The jury system was set up so that the jurors are US. otherwise, why not just settle for a tribunal?

[SoCalDem]

17. I did not advocate for professional juries.. Just pointed out

that a jury of peers is not very likely..I do not think that rich people should be allowed to skate on jury duty.. I get called like clockwork.. and I do not mind going..

And even if rich people "are" guilty, their punishment usually is much less severe..

I do object to the poisoning of the "potential" jury pool with all the media attention..

None of us "needs" to know (nor should we know) all the stuff they throw out there.. It is an intentional attenpt to taint a jury pool..

A reporter said a while ago that a potential juror at the Martha trial said he had a "personal animosity" towards her, even though he did not know here.. Apparently the judge still asked him if he could put that aside and judge her fairly.. DUH !!!

[Solomon]

19. Well said SoCal. We know where you're coming from.

There's a problem with the system and we need to think of ways it could be bettered. I'm not so sure there is anything we can do since we can see what happens when people try to change some things for the better, like getting all of our civil rights stripped away. Given the current attitude reflected by people accepting the Patriot Act and secret tribunals and no right to be charged, or no right to have lawyers, I would be extremely happy to keep the jury system. I'm even scared of talking about it lest we get some asshole introducing legislation to undo it.

Incidentally, the great point you make in your original post was pondered by black folks for decades, this idea of "jury of your peers." It seems nobody thought the system needed to be changed when all those white juries were acquitting all those civil rights terrorists. OJ gets off and now the system is bad. (This isn't directed at you, but some of the blowhards that don't understand the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt). Don't mean to start any flames, but you raise excellent points that I have thought over for years.

[sweetheart]

18. media regulation is missing

The media are shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, by biasing a trial as such. In britain, they can't get away with that at all without losing their license to broadcast.

Methinks, its not an issue of trials per se, rather one of fair use of the public media common... and in this case, the public common is being used by unscrupulous broadcasters to undermine the constitution and public justice.

The secondary crime of biasing a trial should be a crime in the US, and just because it is not today, does not make the trial system bad.

I agree however, that jury trials have reached their apogee.

I think the constitution should be amended that a panel of judges sit as the "jury" as the expertise needed to hear most cases is beyond the public jury, and simply cannot produce justice. People who are expert in the law and processes of the law are better equipped to administer the decision and sentencing of justice... unfortunate, but given the low education in todays america, rather reality.

[Solomon]

20. Great points. Let's think of ways this can be done.

Should we put a gag order ON THE MEDIA on all trials before the fact? I wouldn't have a problem with this. But how do we handle it once the trial starts? Since the trials are public affairs, reporting should be allowed. Theoretically, because of the pretrial gag order on the media, there wouldn't be a prejudiced jury selected, so that once the jury is impanneled, the media can be allowed to blast away, except that maybe they should only be allowed to report on admissible evidence so as not to taint the jury during the trial. Anyway. Good points.

[SoCalDem]

21. The sad thing is that this is most likely a republican style idea

since they hate "trial lawyers".. It would probably start out as a bill to put a media blackout on all trials that have not started, but it would probably morph into something entirely different :(..

That's the same gang that already loves secret trials :(

[Rhiannon12866]

22. I agree with your sentiments.

I don't think that Martha Stewart is in the least evil. And she has a nice Polish mother. The real evil is in our government, yet they have yet to go on trial or even be formally accused of anything.:shrug: