# What do you think of the US jury system?



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

I think it needs revamping especially after seeing the Casey Anthony fiasco and a few others.


Maybe they should have 12 professional jurors who know the law and the science and then at each trail maybe pick one lay person...or the numbers could be different....but this jury of your peers isn't right in my opinion.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Do you not think that some of the problem arises because of instant media reporting, and opinion?
in my view, the whole truth hardly ever comes out, so bias is going to appear regardless.
if you use lawyers etc. you might as well do without the jury altogether, and have a 3 person judge panel.
the people winning out all the time are the lawyers....I chose the wrong profession again!


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

The media has a lot to do with it, yes but I just don't think picking ordinary people is efficient.

for one, look at all the time wasted in big trails on educating the jury about the science.

I think I would be very afraid, even if innocent of being tried by a jury of my peers.

For one thing..professional people usually can't miss work for a longer trail...so who will you get?

I know when I have gotten a summons here in Fresno, I wasn't happy about it because downtown Fresno is a scary place and after driving down there, the parking lot is far and you have to wait for a shuttle to take you to the courthouse...so, I am already in a negative mood so that would affect my thinking....plus everyone has tneir prejudices...even if they say they dont.

Forget the lawyers...maybe just half the jury know the science, which long time ago wasnt so complicated as it is now with DNA etc.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

If you are summoned for jury service here, you are bound by law to attend.
i was in an exempt profession , although they have changed the law recently.

If you have decent expert witnesses the science should be ok, but there again, they don't agree often, so who do you believe, even with a science degree?

I agree the system isn't perfect by any means... But it isn't easy to make it better..


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

With a science degree I think you have a better chance of deciding who is right.

May be they should not allow expert witnesses to be called anyway, they are always partial to the side that calls them.

BTW...head pharmacists make good money here!

My nephew was the head pharmacist in charge of three hospitals here, he does very well.

Also...it's usually the high profile lawyers making the big bucks.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

I know....grass is always greener...

And, exactly; I am not sure that the truth ever comes out, on either side....no wonder nobody knows what to think.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Usually who has the most money and best lawyers...it's not about a search for the truth anymore.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

I am reading a book about witches in the 17th century at the moment..
they would throw a possible witch into a pond; if she drowned she was innocent, if she floated she was guilty....


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 17, 2014)

Find me a better jury system and Ill support it,every system of any kind has flaws. 
One thing is for sure,the screening of anyone call to serve on a jury is totally out of whack. 
The lawyers questioning of a person to serve on the jury should be limited to maybe 10 questions and within 2 hours. 
Not 3-4 days...that's ridiculous.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Yep, because they are looking for a juror who will vote their way!


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> I am reading a book about witches in the 17th century at the moment..
> they would throw a possible witch into a pond; if she drowned she was innocent, if she floated she was guilty....



Lol...no good choice there.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

It may be true that the jury system went awry in the Casey Anthony trial. But think about the vast amount of trials where the jury system works just fine. If anything, there are too many laws protecting the defendant and not enough for the victim of a crime. Citing the Casey Anthony trial, much of what the public heard was inadmissible evidence, a good deal of which was presented in the court without the jury present.  So the public hears this inadmissible evidence, and we make judgments based upon what we heard but the jury didn't hear.

What is possible with a "professional" jury and not a jury of peers, is something that is prone to corruption of another sort.  Personally, I wouldn't want my life to hang in the balance of a professional jury. Give me Joe or Jenny Lunchbucket.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 17, 2014)

My biggest objection about being a jurist is there is NO excuse to get out of participating...not even AGE !!  (Here in L.A. anyway.);

If you don't show up you're in contempt of court and YOU GO TO JAIL !!  They treat you worse than the defendant.

Once you're IN you're treated like cattle.  Do THIS !  Do that !  Don't do that!  Now, wait until we call you!

Ya get so mad you'd vote with the majority whether you believed it or not...just so you could get it over with and get home !

Oh, And you have to GET there even if you don't have a car, otherwise bus, taxi, skateboard or crawl!  They don't give a shit !


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

I might also add that the laws protecting the defendant are in place after centuries of the defendant having very little protection - like being tossed into a pond.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Being tossed into a pond was trial by the mob, a little like trial by the media now?


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

Falcon said:


> My biggest objection about being a jurist is there is NO excuse to get out of participating...not even AGE !!  (Here in L.A. anyway.);
> 
> If you don't show up you're in contempt of court and YOU GO TO JAIL !!  They treat you worse than the defendant.
> 
> ...



That may all be so - but the whole system would collapse if they were not as stringent as they are. The courts don't want to hear the whine bag excuses, they just want people to do their democratic duty.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

True in high profile cases.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

I just think we need to take another look at certain things to see if they still work...what might have been a good idea 200 yrs ago might not cut it now.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> That may all be so - but the whole system would collapse if they were not as stringent as they are. The courts don't want to hear the whine bag excuses, they just want people to do their democratic duty.




But some are real excuses...so tell me..what kind of juror will you be if you are forced to do something you don't want to?


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Being tossed into a pond was trial by the mob, a little like trial by the media now?



Maybe a mob, but it was the law of the land. if I understand medieval law, it was called 'ordeal' by water, or fire, and if the accused survived it, they were pronounced innocent. In Germany, if the accused did not have someone wealthy to plead their cause, the accused would be forced to dip their arms in boiling water - if they were unharmed, they were innocent (duh) - makes one glad for the laws we have today. Not perfect, but a far cry from what they were.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> But some are real excuses...so tell me..what kind of juror will you be if you are forced to do something you don't want to?



I've been forced to answer to jury summons but always preempted. But sitting there, I've analyzed the situation and resolved that if I am chosen to be on the jury, I wouldn't take my frustration on the system out on the defendant.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 17, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> But some are real excuses...so tell me..what kind of juror will you be if you are forced to do something you don't want to?



EXACTLY my point Ceecee !


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

But if you don't, the jury could be full of people who do want to do it......for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily good.
Democracy surely requires a small sacrifice to do it's best to produce the fairest trial possible...


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 17, 2014)

Whenever you're dealing with people, you're taking a chance.  I agree, even if I'm completely innocent, I'd be very nervous about being found guilty.  A lot depends on how good of a lawyer you can afford too.  Just as Casey Anthony, who should have gotten the death penalty from all I knew, was set free, there are lot of people in jail who are innocent, just didn't have the right representation.  They use a lot of technicalities and loopholes to win their cases, which is legal to do obviously, but not always very fair.  I've been called to jury duty several times over the years, but never chosen to serve on a trial, which is fine by me.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Sorry falcon...mixed you and jrfromafar up.

Also...look at all the after interviews of jurors, some of the things they say are scary...I don't believe in science is one I heard.

Then there are the ones that fall asleep during a trail or do it in hopes of cashing in on a book deal., I could go on and on.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> Whenever you're dealing with people, you're taking a chance.  I agree, even if I'm completely innocent, I'd be very nervous about being found guilty.  A lot depends on how good of a lawyer you can afford too.  Just as Casey Anthony, who should have gotten the death penalty from all I knew, was set free, there are lot of people in jail who are innocent, just didn't have the right representation.  They use a lot of technicalities and loopholes to win their cases, which is legal to do obviously, but not always very fair.  I've been called to jury duty several times over the years, but never chosen to serve on a trial, which is fine by me.




Ive also been called but never chosen...here you have to call in every morning to see if you have to go in that day...this lasts about a week til you are dismissed.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> Sorry falcon...mixed you and jrfromafar up.
> 
> Also...look at all the after interviews of jurors, some of the things they say are scary...I don't believe in science is one I heard.
> 
> Then there are the ones that fall asleep during a trail or do it in hopes of cashing in on a book deal., I could go on and on.



All true. But lawyers, defendants and plaintiffs, and the judge hear all of those interviews and can preempt without citing reason. That's why the jury selection phase takes such a long time. Then out of sometimes over 100 people, they settle on a jury. It may not be a perfect system, but in my opinion it could be much worse!


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

Even with all of its flaws, the jury system makes sense to me. But I can tell you what my mind cannot wrap around - and that is why a defendant is not compelled to testify in their own behalf. Sure - if I was guilty, I'd sit there with my mouth shut. But if I were innocent, they couldn't shut me up. And for that reason (among others) I wouldn't make a good juror.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Because then the prosecutor will be able to question you and he will look for any chance to tear you or your story apart.

And if you've not led a perfect life it will come out.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Trouble is you two, you are both law-abiding, and truth-tellers. Many defendants aren't; somebody has to try and separate truth from lies.
and, I knows, victims can lie too....so where can the truth be found? And how?


----------



## Sid (Jan 17, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> Even with all of its flaws, the jury system makes sense to me. But I can tell you what my mind cannot wrap around - and that is why a defendant is not compelled to testify in their own behalf. Sure - if I was guilty, I'd sit there with my mouth shut. But if I were innocent, they couldn't shut me up. And for that reason (among others) I wouldn't make a good juror.



  To me that is good thing. One does not have to they are inocent. The accuser has to prove their guilt.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

At the core of my problem with the jury system is that those 12 people sitting in the box are NOT my peers.

They are people that think going to Wal-Mart for a few hours on a Saturday constitutes "family time"; they do not have my physical ability nor my mental prowess; they do not KNOW me nor my motivations, dreams, desires, hopes, needs or goals; they probably enjoy watching prime-time sit-coms and think that those are the epitome of entertainment and wit, and I guarantee you that at least one of them is the kind of person who will pick their nose in public, inspect it, then pop it in their mouth.

_Peers_? Hardly.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

Yes, I've heard those reasons before, but if the defendant cannot speak up in their own defense, there's an elephant in the room I can't ignore. Sid, what if you're the defendant, and things are not looking good for you, and all around you are lies that are framing you? In my mind, if the defendant does't get up and straighten the story out,  I'm prone to believe he/she's guilty! Well this is another subject anyway - sorry for the tangent


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Phil, I realise you you have just discounted 99% of the US population, but there must be somebody out there......

Jrfromafar, no more than usual...


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> At the core of my problem with the jury system is that those 12 people sitting in the box are NOT my peers.
> 
> They are people that think going to Wal-Mart for a few hours on a Saturday constitutes "family time"; they do not have my physical ability nor my mental prowess; they do not KNOW me nor my motivations, dreams, desires, hopes, needs or goals; they probably enjoy watching prime-time sit-coms and think that those are the epitome of entertainment and wit, and I guarantee you that at least one of them is the kind of person who will pick their nose in public, inspect it, then pop it in their mouth.
> 
> _Peers_? Hardly.



Those are my fears too, I just didn't know how to put it as nicely as you did, lol


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

Guilty!


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

OMG...that is just soooo wrong!!


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

No need for a jury there!


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> Yes, I've heard those reasons before, but if the defendant cannot speak up in their own defense, there's an elephant in the room I can't ignore. Sid, what if you're the defendant, and things are not looking good for you, and all around you are lies that are framing you? In my mind, if the defendant does't get up and straighten the story out,  I'm prone to believe he/she's guilty! Well this is another subject anyway - sorry for the tangent



Trouble is you can't just get up there and tell your story...you have to answer the questions asked and a good prosecutor will ask questions Ina way that you won't look good!

Most attorneys are drooling for a defendant to get on the stand.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> At the core of my problem with the jury system is that those 12 people sitting in the box are NOT my peers.
> 
> They are people that think going to Wal-Mart for a few hours on a Saturday constitutes "family time"; they do not have my physical ability nor my mental prowess; they do not KNOW me nor my motivations, dreams, desires, hopes, needs or goals; they probably enjoy watching prime-time sit-coms and think that those are the epitome of entertainment and wit, and I guarantee you that at least one of them is the kind of person who will pick their nose in public, inspect it, then pop it in their mouth.
> 
> _Peers_? Hardly.



All true! But can you think of a way to make it more equal? You have a certain level of sophistication and dignity - so you want to be judged from a pool of people with equal sophistication and dignity. What about the homeless man accused of something he is innocent of - does he have to be judged by a jury of nose pickers ??? Maybe there is some merit to matching peer groups. Perhaps class distinction is a good thing?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Phil, I realise you you have just discounted 99% of the US population, but there must be somebody out there......



  Of that *1%* left - based upon the current US population that's a little over *3 million* - if we assume that they are equally divided up among states, that leaves *60,000* in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ...

Of those *60,000*, since there are *67* counties in Pennsylvania that would leave *895* in my county available for duty ... 

From that *895* we can subtract the *97.9%* that do not have an IQ equal to mine, leaving *18* in the jury pool ...

Of those *18*, it is unlikely that any more than *1* of them will hold an *Alpha 7 / 2% *rating on the _Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory_ ...

And finally, I doubt that *that last one* will hold a fourth _dan_ in Taekwondo, third _dan_ in Hapkido, second _dan_ in judo, first _dan_ in Aikido, senior instructor ranks in Hung Gar and Northern Long Fist Kung Fu or 44 years experience in Taijiquan. 

... OR be the *Hamster Land-Speed Record* holder.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

I don't disagree with any of that, though you could ask for your trial to be moved; but that means that you will have to judge yourself. Does that work for you?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> All true! But can you think of a way to make it more equal? You have a certain level of sophistication and dignity - so you want to be judged from a pool of people with equal sophistication and dignity. What about the homeless man accused of something he is innocent of - does he have to be judged by a jury of nose pickers ??? Maybe there is some merit to matching peer groups. Perhaps class distinction is a good thing?



Jr, I haven't believed in class distinction since the concept was taught to me in grade school. 

I don't see "classes" - I see a continuum upon which we start with the highly-evolved, physically and mentally-superior Human and descend gradually through various levels of ability and intelligence all the way down to Pond Scum and Politicians.

To place any group into a "class" would require setting arbitrary cut-off limits, and that limitation would be defined by people on one side or the other of that fence. Now, I never had the gall to tell my neighbor, over our shared property-line fence, what they should do with _their_ yard, just as I never expected _them_ to tell _me_.  

Classes are against nature - they are an invention of Man, designed to control their fellow Man.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

I still think that a jury that is not picked randomly for every trail could work...get 13 or 15 in case someone is sick people who are well versed in law and science and maybe a few other subjects...pay them..it could be a career choice in the future, make sure you have liberal and conservative and I don't see why that wouldn't work better than what we have.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> All true! But can you think of a way to make it more equal? You have a certain level of sophistication and dignity - so you want to be judged from a pool of people with equal sophistication and dignity. What about the homeless man accused of something he is innocent of - does he have to be judged by a jury of nose pickers ??? Maybe there is some merit to matching peer groups. Perhaps class distinction is a good thing?



I didn't mean to infer that all homeless people are nose pickers or without any dignity.

I also imagine, with this class distinction, someone in the high echelon is pitted against someone in a low echelons how do you choose a fair and impartial jury?


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

A professional jury like I mentioned would be impartial...nothing to gain from anything.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> A professional jury like I mentioned would be impartial...nothing to gain from anything.



The problem I see in professional jurors (in my opinion) is that they could so easily develop their own prejudices.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Why would that be any different from lay jurors?


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Jr, I haven't believed in class distinction since the concept was taught to me in grade school.
> 
> I don't see "classes" - I see a continuum upon which we start with the highly-evolved, physically and mentally-superior Human and descend gradually through various levels of ability and intelligence all the way down to Pond Scum and Politicians.
> 
> ...



Ever more the complication of finding a matched group of peers to make up a jury !


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Well then forget about the peers part...a professional jury, it's a job...you are trained in forensics, DNA, law, psychology and have to be as impartially as humanly possible.

Or how about feed the info into a computer and see what the verdict is....maybe that will be the way in the future.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> Why would that be any different from lay jurors?



Lobbies, bribery, power, all the trappings of a little mini politician. The lay juror is Joe Lunchbucket that does not live a lifestyle and social standing that a professional juror would. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> Well then forget about the peers part...a professional jury, it's a job...you are trained in forensics, DNA, law, psychology and have to be as impartially as humanly possible.
> 
> Or how about feed the info into a computer and see what the verdict is....maybe that will be the way in the future.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

:bashcomp:


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 17, 2014)

Ita easy to get out of jury duty.
“I fart uncontrollably.”


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

They would make you wear a filter...I've seen them, lol.


----------



## That Guy (Jan 17, 2014)




----------



## Warrigal (Jan 18, 2014)

Can someone enlighten me on this point?
Do American juries simply pronounce guilty or not guilty, or do they also have a say in sentencing?


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 18, 2014)

Warrigal said:


> Can someone enlighten me on this point?
> Do American juries simply pronounce guilty or not guilty, or do they also have a say in sentencing?



No say in sentencing - that is "prescribed by law". They do know what the consequence of their verdict is likely to be though.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 18, 2014)

I've been on the jury roll four times and have been called up over the years but have never actually been empanelled.

Sometimes I asked to be excused for various reasons, and was never refused. One was because I had a compulsory university residential course to attend, another time I was really needed at work and a third time we were booked on a holiday to China and the case was going to be a long one. Other times I was not needed because they always call too many jurors. Once the accused did not turn up. 

The last time I was summonsed they were asking if any of the potential jurors could make themselves available for a rather long trial - eight to ten weeks. Since I was no longer working I put up my hand and was asked to return in a week's time. When I did I finally got to observe the jury selection process.

First we all had to sit through the reading of the charges while the accused men were sitting in the court room. They were four of the most evil looking crims you could ever imagine, notwithstanding their scrubbed faces and shiny suits. They were confined in a secure area behind thick glass and each had a prison guard sitting behind him. Pretty sure they weren't out on bail. In various combinations they were charged with multiple offences relating to about six armed robberies of banks and armoured vans. Any juror that was associated with any of the robberies or knew people who were, were asked to excuse themselves. Then the list of witnesses for each set of charges was read out. Again, if we recognised any of the names, we were to speak up and be excused. During this process I came to doubt my capacity to sit through something that was going to last for about three months. I found myself nodding off and fighting to stay awake. 


I did watch the selection process until the quota of 14 was achieved. For a long trial, they have a couple of spares. We all had a jury identification number and these numbers were called out at random. However my number didn't come up. As each number was called, the person simply stood up and walked over to the jury box. They did not speak and were not asked any questions. There were five senior counsel, each with an assistant beside them and each senior counsel could challenge four potential jurors. They didn't have to give any reason at all. I noticed that the defence counsel routinely challenged the men and older women. In the end the jury was tipped towards younger women. I thought that this was a deliberate ploy to acquire a jury that might be intimidated by sitting facing four very scary thugs day after day.

When that jury was full we then moved to another court where a man was charged with a home invasion where he terrified two young women with a replica gun and stole money and jewellery. This time the few young women still in the pool were challenged by the defence and this jury was top heavy with middle aged men. So, even without knowing anything about the potential jurors, the jury does get shaped in favour of the defendant.

I recently had notice that I was being put on the list again, but having turned 70 I was allowed to be excused on grounds of age. I won't have to worry about dozing off ever again.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 19, 2014)

That was interesting, Warrigal.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 19, 2014)

Funny fitting pic.  LOL


----------

