Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidwar  So, thanks if you read this far, and here comes my point . . .
Voir dire, is a direct violation of the 6th amendment, because it allows partiality where impartiality was decreed.
If a potential juror has a bias, I have a right to that bias sitting in my jury box.
If a potential juror worked a job that had to do with the case, I have a right to his knowledge of the industry being present on the jury. |
Like Iremon pointed out, the purpose of voir dire is to make sure that all 12 people on the jury are impartial at least to a degree that would allow them to fairly examine the evidence. If an open KKK member is on a jury trying a white man of lynching a black man, the person on trial will never be convicted because just one person can always hang a jury. That's not in the best interests of justice.
Quote:
The jury system is there to protect the citizen from the government.
Why then would we dilute this protection and give such power to lawyers ??
When they hand pick juries, the citizen ends up needing protection from them and their undue influence.
|
In situations where there is voir dire, one of the people there is by definition, protecting you.
Quote:
|
My contention is that the 6th amendment prohibits the process of Voir dire, because of the word "impartial".
|
I can see how you could read it that way, but that's never been the way it was interpreted, nor is there any evidence that that's what the founders had in mind when they drafted it.