• 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!

Th Flaw In Jury Duty

rhinefire

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,399
Reaction score
3,021
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance? The attorneys for both sides as the address the potential jurors take note on our behavior, looks, etc. as they discuss the case. Would it not be better if they were to select jurors behind a wall while discussing the case? The summons you receive addresses the subject of how you can dress so appearance does sway the attorneys. Note, the attorneys are trained to look for certain things in prospective jurors. How does one look like a person that would convict or acquit? So why is this OK? I will confront the judge with this point tomorrow.
 
rhinefire said:
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance? The attorneys for both sides as the address the potential jurors take note on our behavior, looks, etc. as they discuss the case. Would it not be better if they were to select jurors behind a wall while discussing the case? The summons you receive addresses the subject of how you can dress so appearance does sway the attorneys. Note, the attorneys are trained to look for certain things in prospective jurors. How does one look like a person that would convict or acquit? So why is this OK? I will confront the judge with this point tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Jury of peers.

So, at a glance, how does one determine peers, without being too invasive? This is my take, anyway.
 
rhinefire said:
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance? The attorneys for both sides as the address the potential jurors take note on our behavior, looks, etc. as they discuss the case. Would it not be better if they were to select jurors behind a wall while discussing the case? The summons you receive addresses the subject of how you can dress so appearance does sway the attorneys. Note, the attorneys are trained to look for certain things in prospective jurors. How does one look like a person that would convict or acquit? So why is this OK? I will confront the judge with this point tomorrow.
Click to expand...

One way of avoiding this problem is simply to abolish juries. We don't have them in Sweden - the judges decide whether or not the accused is guilty.
 
rhinefire said:
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance? The attorneys for both sides as the address the potential jurors take note on our behavior, looks, etc. as they discuss the case. Would it not be better if they were to select jurors behind a wall while discussing the case? The summons you receive addresses the subject of how you can dress so appearance does sway the attorneys. Note, the attorneys are trained to look for certain things in prospective jurors. How does one look like a person that would convict or acquit? So why is this OK? I will confront the judge with this point tomorrow.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...ippy-thanks-coming-we-did-not-choose-you.html

I had jury duty last month and opened a thread in LE to post my experience in narrative style. A moderator from an apparently sophisticated community in Idaho deemed my thread in the wrong forum category and moved it to "Off Topic". I hope you share your experience. Thank you for fulfilling your jury duty obligation.
 
rhinefire said:
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance? The attorneys for both sides as the address the potential jurors take note on our behavior, looks, etc. as they discuss the case. Would it not be better if they were to select jurors behind a wall while discussing the case? The summons you receive addresses the subject of how you can dress so appearance does sway the attorneys. Note, the attorneys are trained to look for certain things in prospective jurors. How does one look like a person that would convict or acquit? So why is this OK? I will confront the judge with this point tomorrow.
Click to expand...

There are no laws against convicting someone taking their looks into account. And being selected for jury duty carries no such expectation. Jury selection is an art. Watch "Bull" some time. You will be amazed.

Professional jury molding can only be done with lots of money. But when the defense has it? It's "Katy! Bar the door!" The defense will do background checks, see who they work for, check their social media, pick and pitch to mock juries, look for certain personality types, education, medical history, EVERYTHING. And from there extrapolate who is more likely to look favorably at their client... and how they need to pitch to each individual juror.

You ask why it's OK. It's OK because there are no laws against doing same. Whose rights are being violated by hand selecting a jury that may best benefit a defendant? Nobody's.
 
British jury members are called up from the voter's roll for a two-week spell of jury service. On the first day, they're put in batches of 15 by a court official, and then 12 will be randomly selected from that group for a case. The "spare" jurors are then reformed into more batches till the day's cases are covered. Once you have tried a case, you will have discharged your duty for that service. On very rare occasions such as a nationally important case, the jury pool will be vetted. Only then would the prosecution/defence have any input to the final jury.
 
rhinefire said:
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance?
Click to expand...
The lawyers can toss a jury member for any reason whatsoever.

Unfortunately, the attempts to ensure that jury selection are not discriminatory haven't worked very well. NPR's Radiolab crew did a good piece on this not too long ago.

Object Anyway : NPR One

Make sure you shake your fist at the judge, so you get removed from the jury. :mrgreen:
 
Sweden said:
One way of avoiding this problem is simply to abolish juries. We don't have them in Sweden - the judges decide whether or not the accused is guilty.
Click to expand...

I agree, in the Netherlands we also do not have a jury system and it works just fine. But that can only be done if judges are not elected.
 
Peter King said:
I agree, in the Netherlands we also do not have a jury system and it works just fine. But that can only be done if judges are not elected.
Click to expand...

In run of the mill cases the absence of a jury is no loss. But the jury system is the last defence of the people against bad laws passed by ruling elites: in the last resort it is essential to democracy.
 
Sweden said:
In run of the mill cases the absence of a jury is no loss. But the jury system is the last defence of the people against bad laws passed by ruling elites: in the last resort it is essential to democracy.
Click to expand...

Isn't "loss" rather like "beauty"--in the eye of the beholder?

Though it has been steadily assaulted since the Sparf decision in 1895, the jury system is named twice in the US Constitution.

Sadly, today's jurors are usually but a rubber stamp for government malfeasance. The Steven Avery case as shown on Netflix is a perfect illustration of a jury rubber stamp.
 
Sweden said:
In run of the mill cases the absence of a jury is no loss. But the jury system is the last defence of the people against bad laws passed by ruling elites: in the last resort it is essential to democracy.
Click to expand...

But Jury's do not factor into the passing of bad laws by the ruling elite IMO, they are only used in criminal cases and a good judge system with independent and non-removable judges makes for an independent judiciary who can be the last defense against bad laws.
 
Peter King said:
But Jury's do not factor into the passing of bad laws by the ruling elite IMO, they are only used in criminal cases and a good judge system with independent and non-removable judges makes for an independent judiciary who can be the last defense against bad laws.
Click to expand...

In the US, juries are also used in civil cases.

If one subscribes to the idea that all political power flows from the people to their elected officials, then the jury is The People. Their decision in any trial is the final authority when they acquit.
 
MaggieD said:
There are no laws against convicting someone taking their looks into account. And being selected for jury duty carries no such expectation. Jury selection is an art. Watch "Bull" some time. You will be amazed.

Professional jury molding can only be done with lots of money. But when the defense has it? It's "Katy! Bar the door!" The defense will do background checks, see who they work for, check their social media, pick and pitch to mock juries, look for certain personality types, education, medical history, EVERYTHING. And from there extrapolate who is more likely to look favorably at their client... and how they need to pitch to each individual juror.

You ask why it's OK. It's OK because there are no laws against doing same. Whose rights are being violated by hand selecting a jury that may best benefit a defendant? Nobody's.
Click to expand...

Again the exact same process could be achieved without seeing the potential jurors if they were behind a wall. How best is justice served? The following appears on my summons.
"Proper attire is required. All persons entering the courtroom should be dressed in clothing reasonably befitting the dignity and solemnity of the court proceeding (e.g., shorts, tank tops or t-shirts with derogatory images messages that are not permitted.")
I would love to organized 100 people dressed in various attire and see what response if any, there is to some of the items worn and what some decisions are based on. Example; How are shorts objectionable? This is Houston, TX and in this town short are worn year round. Is a mini-skirt allowed? How about a Mickey Mouse short versus Charles Manson shirt? Hair style, glasses, clean shaven?. Having witnessed some jurors that were selected in my experiences the words " dignity and solemnity" did not jump out.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In the US, juries are also used in civil cases.

If one subscribes to the idea that all political power flows from the people to their elected officials, then the jury is The People. Their decision in any trial is the final authority when they acquit.
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the idea that politicians do not make laws that go against the constitution. In the Netherlands we have an office that checks every law before it makes it onto the political arena and than there are the judges who can affect laws but are not allowed to rule on constitutional issues. But as the constitution is already resolved, and constitutional laws have to be passed by 2 parliaments to come into law. And they have to be adopted with a 2/3 majority.

And trials about a lot of legal things (like the wall being built) will be decided by non-jury courts, at least the supreme court does not have a jury and I think lower courts will also rule on this from the bench.
 
rhinefire said:
Our laws prevent the system from arresting and or convicting someone because they "look" guilty or innocent. So with that in mind why is it we are selected to serve or not to serve based on our look or appearance? The attorneys for both sides as the address the potential jurors take note on our behavior, looks, etc. as they discuss the case. Would it not be better if they were to select jurors behind a wall while discussing the case? The summons you receive addresses the subject of how you can dress so appearance does sway the attorneys. Note, the attorneys are trained to look for certain things in prospective jurors. How does one look like a person that would convict or acquit? So why is this OK? I will confront the judge with this point tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Being on a jury has nothing to do with Due Process. Attorneys select jurors based on how it will help their client, nothing more.
 
Peter King said:
I subscribe to the idea that politicians do not make laws that go against the constitution. In the Netherlands we have an office that checks every law before it makes it onto the political arena and than there are the judges who can affect laws but are not allowed to rule on constitutional issues. But as the constitution is already resolved, and constitutional laws have to be passed by 2 parliaments to come into law. And they have to be adopted with a 2/3 majority.

And trials about a lot of legal things (like the wall being built) will be decided by non-jury courts, at least the supreme court does not have a jury and I think lower courts will also rule on this from the bench.
Click to expand...

That may be true, and well and good in the Netherlands, but it is not the case in the US. Here, the most virulent enemies of the Constitution are those of the domestic variety. For example, our politicians have passed legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment, and legislation that suspends Habeas Corpus, and elected Presidents have signed off on such attacks.

Lucky you there in the Netherlands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom