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

[brycejones]

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

That is, it works for 1.2%

Uno

I believe this trend reflects the immense power that prosecutors have in criminal cases merely by being able to choose from a selection of various charges to levy against a defendant. We've created circumstances as part of our "get tough on crime" and "war on drugs" philosophies defendants can be facing a number of charges and very lengthy potential sentences if convicted plus the potential cost of defending against the charges taking a plea deal is the lowest risk option. Plus a quick plea gives a prosecutor another notch on the belt.

 

[WackyDan]

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.

Have you ever been through a jury selection process? For most cases, it is somewhat entertaining if painful. For more serious cases the selection process can be long and fairly intense... That selection process is there to weed out the outright stupid, the pre-biased, etc from the jury pool.

I'd rather be tried by a jury of my fellow citizens then have a judge or panel of corrupt judges decide my fate.

As for whether or not a jury can understand today's advanced forensics? Sure they can...That evidence, how it came to be and the technology used is spelled out in very simple terms to the jury.

What would be a better system in your view?

 

[WackyDan]

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

All corrupt with private prison corporations lining their pockets? Sure you would.

 

[WackyDan]

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?

The Plea bargains are mutually beneficial. It allows the court to get through it's case load faster with less court rooms and judges, as well juries required - saving taxpayers the expense. It allows the guilty the chance to get a lesser charge especially when there is enough evidence to sentence them for the full crime.

It is a win/win and used properly can get one perp to rat out another, etc.

Can it be abused? Certainly - there should be an abundance of oversight for that, but overall it is effective.

 

[1prophet]

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

Pay them at least minimum wage like all other employers are required to.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

The company for whom I work pays normal salary for jury duty. I chose to donate my $12 (2 days jury duty) to help underprivileged children.

As far as I know if a person is impaneled on a jury in Ft Bend County Texas the person receives $40/day vs the standard $6/day that's paid when reporting for jury duty. I think it's $50/day for those serving on a grand jury.

 

[KB]

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

Our legal system is actually setup quite well. It is designed to give most of the benefits to the defendent in order to reduce the likelihood of a false conviction. These benefits include evidence disclosure, speedy trial and trial by 12 of your peers. If you were being tried wouldn't you want these benefits?

As far as trial by judge panel goes, there are cases where I would agree with you. For example if you are being tried for a crime so heinious that you feel the jury will be blinded by the charges.

But in most cases the fewer people presiding over the case the worse it would be for you. The benefits of a trial by jury is that 12 people must agree in order to convict you. It is hard enough to get 12 people to agree on what pizza to order. The more people who are your jury the greater the odds that one person will holdout and not convict you. If I were being tried, I would prefer a jury of 1000 people, all of whom must agree to convict or I get off free.

 

[Brainonska511]

Our legal system is actually setup quite well. It is designed to give most of the benefits to the defendent in order to reduce the likelihood of a false conviction. These benefits include evidence disclosure, speedy trial and trial by 12 of your peers. If you were being tried wouldn't you want these benefits?

As far as trial by judge panel goes, there are cases where I would agree with you. For example if you are being tried for a crime so heinious that you feel the jury will be blinded by the charges.

But in most cases the fewer people presiding over the case the worse it would be for you. The benefits of a trial by jury is that 12 people must agree in order to convict you. It is hard enough to get 12 people to agree on what pizza to order. The more people who are your jury the greater the odds that one person will holdout and not convict you. If I were being tried, I would prefer a jury of 1000 people, all of whom must agree to convict or I get off free.

In theory, our legal system is set up quite well. But in reality, the deck is stacked against defendants and people that have been convicted.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I think the peers should really be peers.

So you want a panel of pedos/rapists/murderers/gang-bangers/meth-heads determining the fate of a fellow pedo/rapist/murderer/gang-banger/meth-head?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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.

This is not true, and it's a fiction that I consider corrosive to our society. In my experience (which is considerable, since I have tried dozens of cases to juries both in the military and as a civil litigator), jurors are generally reasonably bright and usually get things right. It is not a perfect system, but no human enterprise is perfect.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

jurors are generally reasonably bright and usually get things right.

The one jury I served on was comprised of people who were truly interested in doing the right thing for the biggest part. There were two that had their minds made up the person was guilty before the first witness was called and both were replaced by alternates the 2nd morning. I gather the jury foreman informed the judge of the situation via a note the first afternoon. After that the jurors listened to the testimony and closely reviewed the evidence. The accused was found not guilty.

It is not a perfect system, but no human enterprise is perfect.

It may not be perfect but it's far better than what other countries have in place.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

man id be scared crapless to go on trial in this country, peeps in this country is so dumb and have so many biases (pro police bias, physical appearance bias, economic bias...), man i be terrified, i tink i would flee da cuntree...

dis beach here get deaf for killing her son after a cop lied:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-22-years-death-row-murder-case-tossed.html


man if u is a dude an u got accused a rape or molisashun, man good luck tryna beat dat evun if u was innacint

Employing your curious argot is inappropriate for any forum save OT. Even in OT, you will henceforth run the risk of sanction should indulge yourself in such more than occasionally. And by occasionally, we mean rarely. And by rarely, we mean almost never. Consider yourself well warned.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[cabri]

man id be scared crapless to go on trial in this country, peeps in this country is so dumb and have so many biases (pro police bias, physical appearance bias, economic bias...), man i be terrified...

A jury of YOUR PEERS should not be a problem.
Unless they are unable to understand the instructions themselves.
Most judges do not speak your language.

 

[Rakehellion]

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

How long was the trial?

 

[Jerem]

The Mrs. served on a jury a while back. An officer created a situation where there wasn't one (he wasn't called, he was patrolling), escalated it, used excessive force than charged the two that were doing nothing to begin with with a bunch of felonies. All but two of the jurors were ready to acquit after a review of the evidence. It took a while but those two changed their vote and it was unanimous not guilty. The system worked.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

The Mrs. served on a jury a while back. An officer created a situation where there wasn't one (he wasn't called, he was patrolling), escalated it, used excessive force than charged the two that were doing nothing to begin with with a bunch of felonies. All but two of the jurors were ready to acquit after a review of the evidence. It took a while but those two changed their vote and it was unanimous not guilty. The system worked.

Unless the cop ended up with jail time, the system DIDN'T work.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Unless the cop ended up with jail time, the system DIDN'T work.

this is correct, its actuallly a CRIME for a cop the falsely charge someone with a crime just because they want to:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/08...lying-in-report-about-arresting-photographer/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/n...f-civil-rights-violation-in-false-arrest.html

in practice, the law doesnt mean anything though, because cops, prosecutors and judges have the power not enforce the law against themselves

 

[Pipeline 1010]

this is correct, its actuallly a CRIME for a cop the falsely charge someone with a crime just because they want to:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/08...lying-in-report-about-arresting-photographer/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/n...f-civil-rights-violation-in-false-arrest.html

in practice, the law doesnt mean anything though, because cops, prosecutors and judges have the power not enforce the law against themselves

It's kind of like these cops, prosecutors, and judges think they are "sovereign citizens" who don't think they should be subject to laws.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

It's kind of like these cops, prosecutors, and judges think they are "sovereign citizens" who don't think they should be subject to laws.

yeah isss lika "prafessanal curtesy" ta let each otha commit crimes

 

[cubby1223]

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?

Is your alternative a workforce of professional jurors, paid wages by the state, hired and fired by state controlled performance reviews?

 

[Jerem]

Unless the cop ended up with jail time, the system DIDN'T work.

Whatever. This thread is about the trial jury system. In this instance it worked.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Whatever. This thread is about the trial jury system. In this instance it worked.

no it didnt. if someone had to go through a trial, go bankrupt paying attorneys and perhaps spend time in jail, and they were innocent, that shows what awful system the usa has

 

[Jerem]

no it didnt. if someone had to go through a trial, go bankrupt paying attorneys and perhaps spend time in jail, and they were innocent, that shows what awful system the usa has

This thread is about whether jury's work or not. It has nothing to do with what you're going on about. I can't explain it to you any simpler than that, and I'm done trying.

 

[PokerGuy]

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

Agreed, if you want better juries, make sure people who serve on the jury are fairly compensated for their time. Good employers pay their employees their regular salary when they serve on a jury, but not all of them do. Maybe that should be a simple mandate, that all employees who serve on a jury must be paid their regular salary during that time for all employers with more than x employees (50? 100? etc).

I know there's a civic duty and all that, but if someone has the choice of doing their regular job and making $150 per day or getting $25 for serving on the jury, the vast majority are going to pick option A and find an excuse to get out of jury duty.

 

[KMFJD]

this is correct, its actuallly a CRIME for a cop the falsely charge someone with a crime just because they want to:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/08...lying-in-report-about-arresting-photographer/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/n...f-civil-rights-violation-in-false-arrest.html

in practice, the law doesnt mean anything though, because cops, prosecutors and judges have the power not enforce the law against themselves

no it didnt. if someone had to go through a trial, go bankrupt paying attorneys and perhaps spend time in jail, and they were innocent, that shows what awful system the usa has

man, wtf, you broke character twice