What's Wrong with Juries?

[Spideynw]

I ran across this article and found it quite thought provoking: What's Wrong with Juries - James Ostrowski - Mises Institute

...Why have juries largely failed in their intended function? There are some obvious and some less obvious reasons. First, juries have been stripped of their rightful, historical power to judge the law as well as the fact. For example, juries with the power to nullify unjust laws routinely acquitted those charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Law. A jury that must follow the law as explained by the judge, would have been forced to convict the liberators...

I had never contemplated this idea before. But I have to completely agree. Juries should have the power to judge not just the facts, but the law as well. This would be an awesome check on the power of the government.

[hsmith]

Lysander Spooner was the big one to push this idea, even though it was part of the original intent.

the problem is, people on juries are just dumb now a day.

Edit: and if you want to get out of Jury Duty, it is quite easy. Just tell them you are an advocate of the juries right to nullification. You will be asked to quickly leave

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by hsmith

the problem is, people on juries are just dumb now a day.

Your average joe sitting on a jury is far too moronic these days to have the power to judge laws.

[goldenponderbob]

The power to judge enevitably includes prejudice mixed with fairness.

Whether a defendant chooses between bench or jury the verdict will still be contaminated from having come into contact with human beings.

I like the idea of having a civilian in charge of the military (our constitutional invention) and non-lawyers at the center of the adjudication process of our justice system (distinct from the English "Peer" system).

I see both as examples of the interwoven fabric of checks and balances that make up our system of goverment. I also see both as attempts to balance human prejudice with their sense of fairness)

For me, it prostitutes the process to allow lawyers to serve on juries. I've had them on cases in which I've served, and their presence has frequently been disruptive and couterproductive.

I think jury deliberations should be immune from liability and what they say and vote on should be prohibited from being used as the basis of an appeal.

Jurists should be allowed to be wrong; that's what deliberation is about and why it seems to work well when there's a bunch of them.

We've seen lots of examples of 50%+one (democracy's major drawback) making a mockery of the common sense of the people (which was worse Bush's national guardstuff or Kerry's Vietnamstuff and were did that nutty debate get us).

Let's not forget that democracy left us some good stuff.

Faith in the ultimate virtue of the common man lies at the heart of what democracy and the jury system is all about

If we lose that what's left.

goldenponderbob

[Thorgrim]

Juries IQ have gone down because those without a higher IQ like to do things like no vote, not be involved in juries, etc etc

Basically a bunch of self-centered "unpatriotic" assholes

However, jury nullification still exists, just start an advocacy group to inform people and then they would do more often, the problem is defense lawyers can't come out and say it, it's against the rules, but they can hint at it, and if juries knew...well then it wouldn't be so weird

The rules have a valid purpose, trials would go on forever and our judicial system would be a trainwreck if we had bus drivers and waiters arguing over intent constructionism and pure textualism

The key is to just inform the public, but no one wants to pay for that because it would end up protecting suspects, something frowned on in America...one of the easiest things we can do is prison reform and we're going at a snails pace because of a public outcry...even though we KNOW there are innocent people in prison

[kombayn]

There is nothing in it for the public to do jury duty anyways. $15 a day? And you lose two weeks of work? Who the fuck wants to do that? When I got my notice, I went the first day and was dismissed, I was suppose to come back for the next 5 days and I just stopped showing up. Nothing happened and no phone calls, even if they did I would rather take a fine. I don't care what's going on, especially if I'm in a case about a stupid robbery. It's a waste of time and most importantly MONEY!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Your average joe sitting on a jury is far too moronic these days to have the power to judge laws.

And it has nothing to do with smart people being unpatriotic. The truth is that in any court case with an uncertain outcome both defense and prosecutors prefer jurists who can be pursuaded by emotional appeals. They spend more of the time trying to find prejudice than they do about your ability to understand and apply law. Some people will be clearly eliminated, but others will be part of a compromise. Many of these people cannot follow simple instructions of a Judge. They don't understand that "reasonable doubt" and "doubt" are not the same thing. And I certainly don't want them interpreting what Laws they think are just and what are not! You do that through your legislature, not in the court room.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Your average joe sitting on a jury is far too moronic these days to have the power to judge laws.

My brother could probably speak at length on this. He clerked for a while for a judge in City Hall. Juries would ask the stupidest questions. It was frightening some of the stuff he would tell me.

[Ezra Smack]

I was called up a while back and reported to the court house. It turns out that they didn't need me. But first I was given a questionnaire that the lawyers use to screen potential jurors. As I understand it, each side gets to veto a certain number of unacceptable jurors. The questionnaire was really quite revealing as how each side in a civil case views acceptable.
They asked my opinion of lawyers. How much money I made. Did I own a business and employ anyone full time. Was I in a union? What my favorite TV shows were. what magazines I read. What political party I voted for and what race I was. The questions were also very specific about the level of education I had.
The most disturbing thing was that practically everyone who owned a business or was gainfully employed got excused to go back to work. The remaining pool was mostly trailers and minorities who thought that the renumeration of $50 a day for serving was big money and obviously didn't have anything else to do that week.

[Ezra Smack]

In many places, juries are selected from the pool of registered voters. This is a ghost of the original system where only property owners could vote. This was because only property owners payed taxes. Would allowing only productive tax paying citizens to serve end most of the problems? Would you feel confident having wards of the state who can't even provide for themselves sit in judgement of you?

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

In many places, juries are selected from the pool of registered voters. This is a ghost of the original system where only property owners could vote. This was because only property owners payed taxes. Would allowing only productive tax paying citizens to serve end most of the problems? Would you feel confident having wards of the state who can't even provide for themselves sit in judgement of you?

No.

The system is set up to remove prejudice. A "ward of the state", as you call those people, would have a hard time receiving a fair trial if, say, a jury was made up entirely of libertarians like yourself.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Lysander Spooner was the big one to push this idea, even though it was part of the original intent.

the problem is, people on juries are just dumb now a day.

Edit: and if you want to get out of Jury Duty, it is quite easy. Just tell them you are an advocate of the juries right to nullification. You will be asked to quickly leave

First of all, if people had the opportunity to judge laws, I bet you would see a lot more intelligent people try to get on jury's.

Second of all, I find politicians to be just as "dumb" now a days as well, and much more corrupt. So I see no problem with letting "dumb" jurors judge laws made by "dumb"/corrupt politicians

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

In many places, juries are selected from the pool of registered voters. This is a ghost of the original system where only property owners could vote. This was because only property owners payed taxes. Would allowing only productive tax paying citizens to serve end most of the problems? Would you feel confident having wards of the state who can't even provide for themselves sit in judgement of you?

That wouldn't really be a jury of my peers would it

[goldenponderbob]

I serve when called and have no problem with the system (nobody's there for the money; that's just carfare). As a registered voter, I get called every year or two. I'm in my sixties and haven't noticed much difference since I began gettting called.

It would be my opinion that the average Joe and Jane in the jiurypool room are remarkably bright and dedicated. About forty are eventually called to a case, from which twelve plus a couple of alternates are selected; oddballs are usually discovered and released quickly. I have seen more than a few mini-napoleans among the clerks and judges but also many who take their jobs seriously.

My last case involved a fellow who "fell" off a wooden pallet (that's right, a 4" tumble all the way down to the floor) in the stockroom of a Toys-Are-Us store. His attorney told a tale of woe about his injured ankle, but apparently someone noticed a few suppressed chuckles among the jury and In less than an hour, the case was suddenly settled among the attorneys without going to verdict.

I know I'm supposed to listen to all the evidence before forming an opinion but I found myself promsing myself five minutes into it, "he'll get no dough out of me today".

The case before that involved a disgruntled customer at a Sears Auto repair store; I've fogotten the details but recall the calamity as being quite small.

I've never been on anything more serious than a burglery.

I wouldn't trade my jury-duty experiences anymore than I would the four years I did in the Navy (which also began from being called to serve, and wasn't about the money either).

Juryrooms and submarines are good examples of places where people discover stuff about themselves and how the world really works.

goldenponderbob

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I ran across this article and found it quite thought provoking: What's Wrong with Juries - James Ostrowski - Mises Institute



I had never contemplated this idea before. But I have to completely agree. Juries should have the power to judge not just the facts, but the law as well. This would be an awesome check on the power of the government.

I don't want someone who's too stupid to get out of jury duty trying to judge a law as well.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't want someone who's too stupid to get out of jury duty trying to judge a law as well.

That's why it's a jury comprised of multiple people, not a single person.



I can't wait to get called up for Jury Duty, I'm going to nullify whatever law it is, regardless of what it is (exception being like murder, rape, theft); either that, or get thrown in jail for Contempt of court.

[lew]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Lysander Spooner was the big one to push this idea, even though it was part of the original intent.

the problem is, people on juries are just dumb now a day.

Edit: and if you want to get out of Jury Duty, it is quite easy. Just tell them you are an advocate of the juries right to nullification. You will be asked to quickly leave

I've got Spooner's book The Trial By Jury and I'm about half-way through. It's fantastic.



TRIAL BY JURY

[Phantom]

I got summoned for Jury duty in Eastern District of VA - where they try lots of terrorists, spies etc.

I was never called to come to the courthouse though

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

That's why it's a jury comprised of multiple people, not a single person.

all it takes is one moran and even the best law is toast.

I can't wait to get called up for Jury Duty, I'm going to nullify whatever law it is, regardless of what it is.....

Well that's just stupid.




Without going into too much detail, the hospital did something wrong and my dad suffered for 3 years because they fucked up his heart. They offered him $50k to go away and he told them to fuck off. Now his lawyer is saying he should take the deal because the average income around where they live is some stupid low number, and if it goes to court the jury might only award him $50k anyway. The lawyer said he's see this happen more than once...the jury decides "I make $10k/year so let's give him 5 years pay!" Fucking hicks......they messed up his heart and it'll affect him for the rest of his life, but because the people who live close are fucking hicks the hospital may not have to pay.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

all it takes is one moran and even the best law is toast.

Well that's just stupid.




Without going into too much detail, the hospital did something wrong and my dad suffered for 3 years because they fucked up his heart. They offered him $50k to go away and he told them to fuck off. Now his lawyer is saying he should take the deal because the average income around where they live is some stupid low number, and if it goes to court the jury might only award him $50k anyway. The lawyer said he's see this happen more than once...the jury decides "I make $10k/year so let's give him 5 years pay!" Fucking hicks......they messed up his heart and it'll affect him for the rest of his life, but because the people who live close are fucking hicks the hospital may not have to pay.

This is why I might possibly be interested in a jury pool such as this:

20 people on the jury, 10 that are your local peers from that area, 5 more peers from surrounding areas / states, other 5 are from across the country.


Have no idea how that could be implemented or even if it would be a good idea, but I like the idea of a jury pool being similar to government federalism - people closest to you have most power but with a little bit of influence of other people from across the country.