a problem with the jury system is that most people lack critical reasoning skills

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
would you trust your so-called peers to assess complex scientific evidence, dna data, etc?

It is important to note that the jury is need to judge the law in addition to the facts.

 

[Moonbeam]

My peers are me and what is true of them is true of me. It would be convenient though, in a fantasy world and considering how much I despise myself, if what I could see in them I didn't have to see in me. I mean, good grief, imagine all my contempt for others were only my contempt for me. Eeeeeew!

But then, on the other hand, if I love myself and my peers are me then I definitely want them to judge.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
BTW, I noticed nobody bothered to apply this same logic to voting. I guess mass franchise democracy is just too sacred of a cow.

That's why I'm not in favor of these "vote or die" campaigns... if you're too stupid, unconcerned, uninformed or lazy to vote, it's great that you don't

 

[TheAdvocate]

They weren't called hanging judges because they starred in porn movies!

That right there is sig-worthy material.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: Dissipate
You forgot to mention the fact that a lot of people on juries are old and retired. Many of them simply haven't a clue when it comes to modern technology.

I used to work in retail and let me tell you, a lot of old people are dumb. And it's not just concerning modern technology either. I believe it's not their fault and it's largely due to a brain in slow decline. They probably don't have any sort of specific disease and it's really quite sad to see and you can't help but think "this could be me some day". They're not truly disabled yet but they don't have all their marbles anymore. However, not all old people are like this but a lot of them are.

I know what you mean. Brain function begins to slow down as you get older. Of course, the degree to which this occurs varies based on genetics.

One good example of this are top chess players. A lot of them go down in the rankings in their '40s which is when they retire. One notable exception though is an old grandmaster named Korchnoi. Genetics at work.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity


Weird that I'm not old and retired and I get to do jury duty this month

That's what happens when you register to vote.

In my state you can get called to jury duty if you get a drivers license, register a vehicle. etc.

Anything that puts your name in the county system.

Can't help but think it increases your odds though.

 

[Zebo]

Nope - i always said if I were convicted of a crime I would forfiet my right to jury trial and let judge decide. 999/1000 americans don't even know the first amendment! That's a fact I'm not making it up.. so how you expect them to look after your rights?
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/13986532.htm


Also the two juries I sat on almost all the jurors presumed guilt and just wanted to go home - get it over with.. Actually took a hostile view of the defense attoney putting up a defense.

 

[Strk]

There's a thread in Off Topic about underrated actors and people are naming actors who have won multiple Oscars; so no, I have no faith in my peers to deal with anything remotely complex.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My peers are me and what is true of them is true of me. It would be convenient though, in a fantasy world and considering how much I despise myself, if what I could see in them I didn't have to see in me. I mean, good grief, imagine all my contempt for others were only my contempt for me. Eeeeeew!

But then, on the other hand, if I love myself and my peers are me then I definitely want them to judge.

You need to get out more... OJ was guilty as sin all there bloods in his truck, at the murder site etc and he walked scot free for henious crime. Peterson OTOH was probably not guilty - certainly no evidence to my mind but because he was a nobody jurors presumed guilt.

 

[episodic]

We just need to get people to realize that jury nullification is available for stupid laws.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My peers are me and what is true of them is true of me. It would be convenient though, in a fantasy world and considering how much I despise myself, if what I could see in them I didn't have to see in me. I mean, good grief, imagine all my contempt for others were only my contempt for me. Eeeeeew!

But then, on the other hand, if I love myself and my peers are me then I definitely want them to judge.

You need to get out more... OJ was guilty as sin all there bloods in his truck, at the murder site etc and he walked scot free for henious crime. Peterson OTOH was probably not guilty - certainly no evidence to my mind but because he was a nobody jurors presumed guilt.

I have more respect for you then to think you would extrapolate a general truth from a few examples and pass that off as convincing. Also knowledge of the first ammendment has nothing to do with how unbiased any one juror will be. I object to this general contempt for others that is see all around me. Remember to me it is you who is other. You must forgive me if I have a much higher opinion of you than you do of me.

 

[Zebo]

I'ts not just those two examples moon I read lots of books on crime and punishment as well since after mystery it's my fav topic...literally thousands of failures in our justice system and many are because of jurors themselves... Anyway I'd let you judge me but noit someone who does'nt know what the Bill of rights are or who the president is.

 

[Lemon law]

Read this F. Lee Baily book once on the criminal justice system---that guilt and innocence was often trumped by how good your attorney is. And that jurors were often sheep to be led.

So if I am charged with a crime maybe I am better trusting in a judge.

But when you consider our attorney general does not seem to be able to be trusted to read the clear language of the US constitution, I just totally lose all faith.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
would you trust your so-called peers to assess complex scientific evidence, dna data, etc?

Ummm.....ROFL! I'm not sure I would trust twelve average Americans to judge whether or not water is wet.

This is one reason why so many cases settle out-of-court. An attorney might know that his client is in the right and that he should win on the evidence, but how can you trust that the members of a modern-day jury have reasoning ability? You can't.

 

[Kibbo86]

I think you seriously underestimate the ability of the average human to reason.

Have you ever sat at the bar of a sports pub? You can hear truck drivers and janitors have hour long conversations involving a complex analysis of statistics, causality, human nature, tactics and strategy.

Sure, this brain power may be wasted on hockey (or whatever your local sports obsession is), but the basic capacity is there.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Read this F. Lee Baily book once on the criminal justice system---that guilt and innocence was often trumped by how good your attorney is. And that jurors were often sheep to be led.

So if I am charged with a crime maybe I am better trusting in a judge.

But when you consider our attorney general does not seem to be able to be trusted to read the clear language of the US constitution, I just totally lose all faith.

You mean this mealy-mouthed liar ?

<WashPost>

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appeared to suggest yesterday that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that the president acknowledged in mid-December.

In a letter yesterday to senators in which he asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales also seemed to imply that the administration's original legal justification for the program was not as clear-cut as he indicated three weeks ago.

At that appearance, Gonzales confined his comments to the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, saying that President Bush had authorized it "and that is all that he has authorized."

But in yesterday's letter, Gonzales, citing that quote, wrote: "I did not and could not address . . . any other classified intelligence activities." Using the administration's term for the recently disclosed operation, he continued, "I was confining my remarks to the Terrorist Surveillance Program as described by the President, the legality of which was the subject" of the Feb. 6 hearing.

At least one constitutional scholar who testified before the committee yesterday said in an interview that Gonzales appeared to be hinting that the operation disclosed by the New York Times in mid-December is not the full extent of eavesdropping on U.S. residents conducted without court warrants.

- - - - - - - - -

PUT HIM UNDER OATH - MAKE HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR 'TRUTHINESS' -
or else you'll never get facts or truthfullness from him, and maybe not even then.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My peers are me and what is true of them is true of me. It would be convenient though, in a fantasy world and considering how much I despise myself, if what I could see in them I didn't have to see in me. I mean, good grief, imagine all my contempt for others were only my contempt for me. Eeeeeew!

But then, on the other hand, if I love myself and my peers are me then I definitely want them to judge.

You need to get out more... OJ was guilty as sin all there bloods in his truck, at the murder site etc and he walked scot free for henious crime. Peterson OTOH was probably not guilty - certainly no evidence to my mind but because he was a nobody jurors presumed guilt.

Well ask for the judge if you like but the Supreme Coup voted Bush.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: Dissipate
You forgot to mention the fact that a lot of people on juries are old and retired. Many of them simply haven't a clue when it comes to modern technology.

I used to work in retail and let me tell you, a lot of old people are dumb. And it's not just concerning modern technology either. I believe it's not their fault and it's largely due to a brain in slow decline. They probably don't have any sort of specific disease and it's really quite sad to see and you can't help but think "this could be me some day". They're not truly disabled yet but they don't have all their marbles anymore. However, not all old people are like this but a lot of them are.

I know what you mean. Brain function begins to slow down as you get older. Of course, the degree to which this occurs varies based on genetics.

One good example of this are top chess players. A lot of them go down in the rankings in their '40s which is when they retire. One notable exception though is an old grandmaster named Korchnoi. Genetics at work.

Although it may be true that the speed of the human brain slows as it ages, that says very little about the ability to think. In fact, optimal "thinking" is a combination of brainpower AND experience.

Look at the arts and literature: Many, many of the greatest works were produced at advanced ages. Chess is a young-person's game primarily because it stresses brute-force computing power. But another, equally-complex game - bridge - requires both brainpower and extensive experience, and there are many world-class players in their sixties.

I don't know exactly what is entailed in being a good juror, but I think that broad experience with human behavior - something the elderly have in spades - has got to be a major plus.