Let's Examine The "Justice By Jury" Concept

This applies to all countries and their jury system. How many jurors is correct? Aren't jurors judges? For those that have gone to appear for possible jury duty what did you think of the lawyers selection of those chosen to serve? Is the concept of "this is the best system we can come up with" good enough to pass judgement? With the computers of today and tomorrow is it feasible the replace juries with computers? Aren't jurors "manipulated' to think or believe by attorneys tricks of the trade?

rhinefire said:

This applies to all countries and their jury system. How many jurors is correct? Aren't jurors judges? For those that have gone to appear for possible jury duty what did you think of the lawyers selection of those chosen to serve? Is the concept of "this is the best system we can come up with" good enough to pass judgement? With the computers of today and tomorrow is it feasible the replace juries with computers? Aren't jurors "manipulated' to think or believe by attorneys tricks of the trade?

Click to expand...

No it is not possible to (justly) replace human judges with computers.

If we lived in a better system in which being the trier of fact=/=being able to judge evidence in a completely unreasonable way and it be accepted as unassailable, then it would be good to have trial only by professional judges. However, since we live under a system with no institutional respect for reasonable judgments, juries are needed to maximize the chance of a reasonable verdict.

rhinefire said:

This applies to all countries and their jury system. How many jurors is correct? Aren't jurors judges? For those that have gone to appear for possible jury duty what did you think of the lawyers selection of those chosen to serve? Is the concept of "this is the best system we can come up with" good enough to pass judgement? With the computers of today and tomorrow is it feasible the replace juries with computers? Aren't jurors "manipulated' to think or believe by attorneys tricks of the trade?

Click to expand...

Is the jury system perfect: Nope.
Is it the best system we've so far been able to come up with? Yep.
Are juries manipulated by attorneys? Yep.
Could computers take over? Nope. Computers don't judge, they just compute. I'm picturing a jury box full of C3PO like entities. It just doesn't compute.

If computers should not be permitted why then is no consideration given the juror IQ's?

I'm not a big fan of the jury system. The jury system hands control over life-altering judgments to a group of people who don't know the law and aren't required to be intelligent or to even have the most baisc grasp of logic. To make matters worse, the more intelligent potential jury members do their best to avoid jury duty, and lawyers have a tendency to dismiss logical thinkers in favor of ones who are more easily swayed. I think a panel of judges would be better than a panel of jurors.

rhinefire said:

If computers should not be permitted why then is no consideration given the juror IQ's?

Click to expand...

Computers are not, as yet intelligent. They cannot make the sort of judgements that are the purpose of being a juror.

It is disappointing to think that the jury system we have today is the best we can come up with. But that does not change the fact of it being the best yet devised.

However, the issues around evidence being excluded seem to be very odd.

rhinefire said:

This applies to all countries and their jury system. How many jurors is correct? Aren't jurors judges? For those that have gone to appear for possible jury duty what did you think of the lawyers selection of those chosen to serve? Is the concept of "this is the best system we can come up with" good enough to pass judgement? With the computers of today and tomorrow is it feasible the replace juries with computers? Aren't jurors "manipulated' to think or believe by attorneys tricks of the trade?

Click to expand...

One, I am not aware of any document that says "Justice by Jury". Anything I have read, dating back to the Magna Carta is "trial by jury" and in that there is a significant difference.

Two, the system of polling or questioning jurors is unique to the US and I do not understand why it is there since there is a finite number of challenges.

I have served on two juries. One an arson trial, some urban renewal for insurance. The process taught me, a former journalist, just how ****ing stupid people can be. It also taught me that the system is fundamentally sound except for the fact they elected me foreman. We were all diligent, with three of us assigning ourselves the role of Devil's Advocate as it was a pretty clear path to conviction.

The other was more tricky, a woman charged with obstruction of justice through an affair she was having with a married RCMP officer. The evidence was vague and indirect where I learned in the judges charge to us that you CAN convict on what you believe happened based on the evidence. In other words, even though there is no proof the person was in the room, you can convict for murder.

In this case there was no proof she had told the cop anything, however as it was pointed out, it had to have come from somewhere and there was nothing else in evidence. It was four and a half days in deliberation but we convicted to a lesser charge of conspiracy.

It works. As a reporter I have seen a lot of trials, and many juries and never seen one that I could say was wrong, although many were unjust.

I was called in on a murder trial in Texas and we were told we the jury would decide the punishment as well as guilty or innocent. I told the judge I will not do it and two others joined in with me. It is not my "civic" duty to order anyone killed and it never will be. I was of course not chosen to serve. It seem logical to me a judge with X number of years hearing cases is much better suited to decide guilt or innocence than a group of people that are being coerced to do so.

I've been on a jury for a murder trial, and I suspect that the judge may have been corrupt. On the other hand, I was also convinced they had the right guy. I came away from the experience convinced that I never want to be on trial in the U.S. It would be far too easy to railroad someone unless he or she has a lot of rich relatives willing to pay for the best attorneys.