• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mock Juries: Do You Agree With Them?

Mock Juries: Do You Agree With Them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,333
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Do you agree with having Mock Trials & Juries?

You are suppose to have a constitutional right to a free trial among your peers. Don't ya think people studying how to pick a jury and get you locked up is wrong?

If you have a right to be be tried by your peers then why should they be allowed to weed people out? Much less do focus groups on how to win. Do you not think this is wrong?

*Edit: Excuse my grammar and spelling. Thanks.*
 
Last edited:
Do you agree with having Mock Trials & Juries?

You are suppose to have a constitutional right to a free trial among your peers. Don't ya think people studying how to pick a jury and get you locked up is wrong?

If you have a right to be be tried by your peers then why should they be allowed to weed people out? Much less do focus groups on how to win. Do you not think this is wrong?

*Edit: Excuse my grammar and spelling. Thanks.*

I want to say maybe. IF there is a conflict of interest that is going to create a bias against or for the accused then those people should be kicked off the jury. Ideally a jury should be as impartial as possible to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. Because there is no fair trial if everyone on the Jury either hates your guts or wants to see you put away for reasons other than what you are accused of. If you got one of those retards who is going to give a criminal a free pass because they are against the potential penalty then that person should be disqualified as well.

I think picking a jury to give the accused an unfair advantage or disadvantage should be illegal and I believe is unconstitutional.So I do think these Mock Juries should have no place.
 
Last edited:
So you think we should ban the Mock Juries? I think so too.

Also since you are suppose to be tried by a jury of your peers don't you think that just doing a random pick is all that is needed? Why should a lawyer be able to try to get a jury that hates you already? What if a lawyer takes your case but in the back of his mind hates you and and allows people who will find you guilty to stay? Why give lawyers that kind of power and trust?

How about allowing others to pick a jury? Not lawyers?
 
Last edited:
Do you agree with having Mock Trials & Juries?

You are suppose to have a constitutional right to a free trial among your peers. Don't ya think people studying how to pick a jury and get you locked up is wrong?

If you have a right to be be tried by your peers then why should they be allowed to weed people out? Much less do focus groups on how to win. Do you not think this is wrong?

*Edit: Excuse my grammar and spelling. Thanks.*

I think exposing youth to due process of law is a wonderful thing. And I know this is a technicallity, but you aren't referring to the Mock Trial Competition, run by the Constitutional Rights Foundation, are you?
 
I think exposing youth to due process of law is a wonderful thing. And I know this is a technicallity, but you aren't referring to the Mock Trial Competition, run by the Constitutional Rights Foundation, are you?

I am talking about where they pay people to be part of a mock jury. It is like you go to the place, they hold a mock trial (sometimes based on real trials) so they can "study" how people react to certain things.
 
I am talking about where they pay people to be part of a mock jury. It is like you go to the place, they hold a mock trial (sometimes based on real trials) so they can "study" how people react to certain things.

Well then, I need to change my vote. To practice how to set a trap in court like this is...unconstitutional, I would think. As jamesrage pointed out, if this is going to create some sort of bais/prejudice, like its supposed to, then this is illegal.

Sorry for my earlier confusion.
 
I should point out that these sometimes based on a real trial is usually after the trial has already happened. I need to point that out.
 
Your lawyer does it just as much as your opponent's so it pretty much evens out.
 
So, honing your skill as a lawyer is unconstitutional?

No, but studying juries is. If, however, the mock trial takes place after the actual trial has been completed, then it is fine, but under the circumstances that it specifically creates no bias in a jury.
 
No, but studying juries is. If, however, the mock trial takes place after the actual trial has been completed, then it is fine, but under the circumstances that it specifically creates no bias in a jury.

But their findings based on these mock juries/paid juries could create a bias.

When I started this poll? I had a real train of thought but seemed to have lost it. Sorry.
 
Could someone explain to me how studying juries, or using a mock jury to practice your approach to a real jury is unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise immoral?

It's called practicing! Training!

You know, the thing that anybody has to do to get good at anything worth doing! :lol:
 
Could someone explain to me how studying juries, or using a mock jury to practice your approach to a real jury is unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise immoral?

It's called practicing! Training!

You know, the thing that anybody has to do to get good at anything worth doing! :lol:

I already explained my thinking: their findings based on these mock juries/paid juries could create a bias.

Real Trials and reading is how lawyers should train to get good at their jobs, not mock paid Juries.

Edit like I said when I started this thread I had more of a train of thought but seem to have forgotten it. lol.
 
Last edited:
Right, I saw that, but I fail to understand how this could possibly be.

Could you maybe explain that to me?

Because they study the people and based on certain ways they look, act, etc. creates an image in their minds thus could lead to bias. Example: You have a mock jury and someone touched their nose cause it itched, someone leaned forward because their back was bothering them, etc. But those doing the study come up with some notion that people doing such things may lean a said way when that is not the case. Am I making sense here? :3oops:

The same thing happens with Real Juries which is why I asked should we maybe create new jobs and let people other than lawyers pick a jury. I am sure this is a bad idea though?

Think about this you hire a lawyer fully expecting him to do his best work for you but he already heard about your case and HATES you. He takes your case just so he can get a jury to screw you. He is willing to lose his case because he thinks you are scum and this is personal. I am pretty sure this happens which is why I brought up that idea.
 
I don't want to derail this thread, but I want to comment: It seems apparent that you believe the current process for selecting juries is too adversarial or too easy to 'game'. In theory, our system is supposed to create an environment for a fair trial but because lawyers have become so adept at manipulating this aspect, they have become less fair.

I haven't really thought about it much, but this issue is an important one. I do think the notion of random or impartial selection as opposed to 'adversarial' selection might both be good alternatives. Or perhaps it would be good to have the defendant choose which of the three methods to use.
 
I don't want to derail this thread, but I want to comment: It seems apparent that you believe the current process for selecting juries is too adversarial or too easy to 'game'. In theory, our system is supposed to create an environment for a fair trial but because lawyers have become so adept at manipulating this aspect, they have become less fair.

I haven't really thought about it much, but this issue is an important one. I do think the notion of random or impartial selection as opposed to 'adversarial' selection might both be good alternatives. Or perhaps it would be good to have the defendant choose which of the three methods to use.
I assume that this random selection would eliminate those who were obviously biased beforehand?
 
Because they study the people and based on certain ways they look, act, etc. creates an image in their minds thus could lead to bias.

Any bias would be only in the mind of the lawyer -- if a mock jury likes a certain approach or likes seeing evidence presented in a certain way, the lawyer goes before the real jury predisposed to use the same techniques.

The bias doesn't affect the real jury, though. As such, what's the problem? :D
 
Do you agree with having Mock Trials & Juries?

You are suppose to have a constitutional right to a free trial among your peers. Don't ya think people studying how to pick a jury and get you locked up is wrong?

If you have a right to be be tried by your peers then why should they be allowed to weed people out? Much less do focus groups on how to win. Do you not think this is wrong?

*Edit: Excuse my grammar and spelling. Thanks.*

Mock trials only benefit un-emotional law students, not real people with real emotions.

ricksfolly
 
Mock trials only benefit un-emotional law students, not real people with real emotions.

ricksfolly

But that is the thing: the thought of law students and even real lawyers being un-emotional is a joke.
 
I was on a mock jury not too long ago, and it was pretty fun. I can't talk about what trial it was for, due to a confidentiality agreement, but I can tell you that it was a pretty big case. Being a juror for a few hours on a Saturday paid pretty good too. For me, it came out to about 80 bucks an hour. :)

The reason for mock juries is so that a law firm can decide whether or not a case is worth pursuing or defending. I don't see a problem with that whatsoever. Some law firms will have several mock trials, with different jury makeups, before making a decision whether or not to take on a case, or to pursue a certain strategy.

BTW, if any of you are interested in being on a mock jury, check out your local Craig's list. That is how I got my jury gig.
 
Last edited:
I was on a mock jury not too long ago, and it was pretty fun. I can't talk about what trial it was for, due to a confidentiality agreement, but I can tell you that it was a pretty big case. Being a juror for a few hours on a Saturday paid pretty good too. For me, it came out to about 80 bucks an hour. :)

The reason for mock juries is so that a law firm can decide whether or not a case is worth pursuing or defending. I don't see a problem with that whatsoever. Some law firms will have several mock trials, with different jury makeups, before making a decision whether or not to take on a case, or to pursue a certain strategy.

BTW, if any of you are interested in being on a mock jury, check out your local Craig's list. That is how I got my jury gig.

Why should a bunch of so called experts need "mock" people to tell them if they should take on a case or not? Sounds like a way to be lazy to me. Not to mention the fact that no telling what all kinds of shady are in these things:shock:

But kudos for the cash. Sounds like an easy way to make money. I hope people that do these things take this very serious and not there just to earn some easy money. This is another reason how these things could create bias. The jury is just blase about it and just there for the green.

Dan, not saying you did any of this and know you are a stand up guy:)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom