Convicted by a jury of your peers? Does this work?

[Sunburn74]

Simple question. In this country, conviction for crime is done by a jury of peers.

In reality does it actually work?

Are the people doing the convicting really peers to the convicted?

Furthermore, even if it does work, is it the best system?

In example, one could argue that we don't rely on peers for most of the most important tasks in society. For example, the decision to have or not have heart surgery is not made by a group of your peers. If anything, the more important the task, the more we tend to disregard the input of layman peers and the more we tend to relegate those tasks to specialists and highly knowledgeable individuals. What is more important than whether a man goes home, goes to prison or is potentially executed?

When this jury of peers system was invented, overall between the top rung and the bottom rung of society, there probably wasn't much in intellectual difference or comprehension of the issues at hand for the average case. Nowadays the difference is vast and what has to be comprehended in trials (forensics, psychology, medicine, law etc) is probably beyond the scope of the average "peer" in my opinion.

What do you guys think about the jury of peers system?

 

[rommelrommel]

A jury is made up of a dozen people who couldn't avoid jury duty. Usually old people and unemployed people. It's a terrible system imo.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

A jury is made up of a dozen people who couldn't avoid jury duty. Usually old people and unemployed people. It's a terrible system imo.

Yes it is. It's just better than any other system.

 

[Sunburn74]

Well, you could say something like: "All members of the jury have to be within 2 years older/younger of the accused" and forgo the requirement of 12 (whatever number you get you get)

Or you could have it be that jury is made up of people ALREADY convicted of and in prison for the crime the accused is facing?


The point is a random group of 12 people just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and the fact we don't use it for pretty much anything else is probably proof that its a dumb way of making decisions.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Well, you could say something like: "All members of the jury have to be within 2 years older/younger of the accused" and forgo the requirement of 12 (whatever number you get you get)

Or you could have it be that jury is made up of people ALREADY convicted of and in prison for the crime the accused is facing?


The point is a random group of 12 people just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and the fact we don't use it for pretty much anything else is probably proof that its a dumb way of making decisions.

Both of your suggestions are worse than the current system unless, you're just out to raise the conviction rate.

 

[Subyman]

IMO, I'd rather it be a panel of elected judges.

 

[lopri]

98% of convictions are done by plea bargains, not by jury trials.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

A jury is made up of a dozen people who couldn't avoid jury duty. Usually old people and unemployed people. It's a terrible system imo.

I can tell you for a fact that is not the case in Fort Bend County, Texas. Out of a pool of 400 people (for 2 cases) less than 10 people were excused from jury duty and those who were elderly or had small children under their care. I made it to 60 person selection and those who were excused out of the first 36 people were at the lawyers or judge decision. I was juror #56 so I wasn't really considered and now I'm exempt for 3 years.

 

[nickbits]

IDK but I enjoyed convicting two thugs, who ended up with life sentences.

 

[schmuckley]

I think the peers should really be peers.

 

[touchstone]

maybe a lawyer here can answer this, but why do we even have plea bargains if the whole justice system should be boolean. why the hell are prosecutors allowed to get people convicted on 'half guilt' i.e. plea them down to lower charges. it encourages police to charge people egregiously in the hopes of getting a 'better' plea bargain for the state, as they surely know 98% of cases will end



it just seems to me that a lot of people get bullied into confessing. how many times have you heard about cases where people are bullied into pleading? how many of those cases never see the light of day?

 

[brianmanahan]

Yes it is. It's just better than any other system.

until we can create a truly impartial artificial intelligence jury

kind of like zardoz

 

[unokitty]

Simple question. In this country, conviction for crime is done by a jury of peers.

In reality does it actually work?

...What do you guys think about the jury of peers system?

Number of civil and criminal cases heard by a judge or jury is at a historic low

“What the general public knows is Law and Order, where everything seems to go to trial,” he said. “It’s just not so.”

The trial rate has been declining for decades...

In the nation’s federal courts, the rate of civil cases that went to trial fell from 11.5 percent in 1962 to 1.8 percent in 2002, according to “The Vanishing Trial,” a report compiled for the American Bar Association. In 2012, the rate was 1.2 percent...

The trends are contrary to what the nation’s founders had in mind when they created the jury system as “our best demonstration of democracy,” he said. “We’re becoming less democratic and more bureaucratic.”

The American judicial system, Burns said, shouldn’t become a place where the expense or risk of taking a case to trial is so great that “only a crazy person would do it.”

Sure it works.

That is, it works for 1.2%

Uno

 

[Brainonska511]

IMO, I'd rather it be a panel of elected judges.

That's as bad as having elected judges presiding over trials. You can here the campaign ads now: "So and So voted 'not guilty' and allowed a person who committed insert heinous crime to go free", leaving out the nuance that perhaps the state didn't have enough evidence to convict.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's as bad as having elected judges presiding over trials. You can here the campaign ads now: "So and So voted 'not guilty' and allowed a person who committed insert heinous crime to go free", leaving out the nuance that perhaps the state didn't have enough evidence to convict.

Well they'd just have to forget about the lack of evidence next time they stand in judgement of someone.

Jury of peers needs to denote common citizen. To protect each other from unjust laws or trampling. It's an impefect answer to a muddy and imperfect world.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well they'd just have to forget about the lack of evidence next time they stand in judgement of someone.

Well, some states seem to have that down.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well, some states seem to have that down.

Failings of the common citizen. Not to be mistaken for the increased failings of a politician if judgements were to be traded for votes.

 

[PokerGuy]

In reality does it actually work?

That depends on how you determine if it "works". I think there are some definite flaws and problems with it, but overall it's still better than alternatives that I've seen.

Are the people doing the convicting really peers to the convicted?

Peers are not "similar people" in age, income or whatever, peers are fellow citizens of the country. So yes, they are peers.

Furthermore, even if it does work, is it the best system?

Define "best", and how you measure that. Then you can compare it to other systems to see what works "best".

In example, one could argue that we don't rely on peers for most of the most important tasks in society. For example, the decision to have or not have heart surgery is not made by a group of your peers. If anything, the more important the task, the more we tend to disregard the input of layman peers and the more we tend to relegate those tasks to specialists and highly knowledgeable individuals. What is more important than whether a man goes home, goes to prison or is potentially executed?

You go to experts in a field to get advice, but you don't have them make the decision. You ultimately make the decision with advice from experts. It's the same in court, each side presents experts, testimony and evidence, and then a normal average person evaluates it and comes to a conclusion.

When this jury of peers system was invented, overall between the top rung and the bottom rung of society, there probably wasn't much in intellectual difference or comprehension of the issues at hand

What makes you think that? Why would you think difference in intellectual capability was any different then than now? I don't think that changes over time. Certainly the world has changed, but you still have some dumb people, some smart people, and everything in between.

Nowadays the difference is vast and what has to be comprehended in trials (forensics, psychology, medicine, law etc) is probably beyond the scope of the average "peer" in my opinion.

That's why you have experts and lawyers to explain the conclusions. Nobody is an expert on everything, we all rely on expertise of others to make decisions.

What do you guys think about the jury of peers system?

Overall flawed system, but I can't think of a better one. There are certain tweaks that we could make to the system to make it better.

For example, right now jurors are very often those who don't have a good excuse or older (retired) people. I'm sure there are some things we could do to get a better random sample of citizens in the mix.

Well, you could say something like: "All members of the jury have to be within 2 years older/younger of the accused" and forgo the requirement of 12 (whatever number you get you get)

No. Peers are not "people like the accused", it means other citizens of the US. Older/younger people are also "peers".

Or you could have it be that jury is made up of people ALREADY convicted of and in prison for the crime the accused is facing?

That's gotta be one of the dumbest ideas I've heard. Why would you want convicted criminals to be part of the jury? They've already demonstrated that they make very poor decisions.

The point is a random group of 12 people just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and the fact we don't use it for pretty much anything else is probably proof that its a dumb way of making decisions.

The point of it isn't that the jurors are experts in forensics or some other specific fields, the point is that are random average "general" citizens that share the community. In essence they are "experts" at being just a random person in the community". They can evaluate the information presented by prosecution and defense (including expert witnesses) and come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Griffinhart]

The primary definition of peer is "one of the same legal status"

The legal definition that is used with juries is:

n. an equal. A "jury of one's peers," to which criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled, means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. It does not mean a jury ethnically, educationally, economically, or sexually the same as the defendant, although, in some jurisdictions attempts are made to meet those criteria

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I've been on 3 juries and overall I like our system. I can only think of two older women whose goal was to decide the case as soon as possible but the rest of the jurors got them back on point about the verdict being very important. I've been on 2 state DUI juries and one federal case. The federal case was not about guilt but how much liability for a work injury. The guy was out at sea so it was in the federal system. One of the DUI's settled with the state shortly before we reached a verdict but we were very close.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The right to a Jury trial is a critical and under appreciated check on government power. I'd like to see more jury nullification.

 

[Slew Foot]

If you want people to like jury duty, pay them their full salary plus a bonus. As opposed to this $5/day bs.

 

[brianmanahan]

If you want people to like jury duty, pay them their full salary plus a bonus. As opposed to this $5/day bs.

you just say that cuz you don't wanna be on jury...

for the price of paying you for 1 day, the court could get 12 people who make 30$k per year

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Employers usually cover the missed work.

 

[brycejones]

IMO, I'd rather it be a panel of elected judges.

Absolutely not, judicial elections are a can of ethical worms.