I think the jury system we use is wrong. Does anyone agree with me?

Question

I don't agree with how the jurys are selected. I don't think most of the people selected should serve on a jury. I think a lot of people found guilty are not and I think a lot of guilty people walk away.

Answer 1

The jury listens to both sides, and both sides have to live with the jury's decision--in this way both sides are in an equal position. But, your points are well taken because juries are far from perfect decisionmakers. One of the constitutional reasons juries are required in criminal trials is so members of a community will have some oversight over what local police and prosecutors do. Before the American Revolution British government officials could and did imprison Americans and convict them of crimes in secret proceedings. So, the purpose of a jury isn't just to decide the question of guilt or innocence but to ensure that the government is not abusing citizens and the law. I agree with the person who wrote that as a country we have not educated our citizens as well as we should in civics and critical thinking to ensure good jurors. I would rather see an effort put into these things rather than abolishing juries altogether and turning the administration of justice completely over to "professionals."

Answer 2

It's a constitutional problem, at least in the US.

Article III guarantees a jury trial for all crimes, and 6th Amendment guarantees an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime was committed.

The problem comes with the concept of "impartial". Humans are not generally trained to be impartial. Most schools don't teach critical thinking or how to avoid bias. So, trying to find someone (let along 6 to 12 or more) who can truly be impartial is almost impossible.

Then you evidentiary burden problems. Under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, it's a matter first of what can be proven given the existing evidence. Absent a confession, there will always be some doubt. So, it because a question of whether the level of doubt is purely speculative (hence unreasonable) or whether there is reasonable doubt.

Now, mix the two together. You have people acting on their beliefs, emotions and biases (even if unconscious). Their certainty or doubt is going to be affected one way or another by those. Plus most people aren't trained to think logically and rationally and to disregard the irrelevant. Most people just form opinions based on what they're told, without a lot of analysis. If you don't believe me, browse Yahoo Answers for a while.

So, we have on one end the constitutional imperative for an impartial jury, and on the other end the fact that human nature and societal training make impartiality rare (if not impossible).

We do the best we can as a legal system, and put in checks and balances along the way to offset human error. But as systems go, while far from perfect, it's still one of the better ones out there.

Answer 3

I hate the jury system. It is nearly impossible to educate a group of people from all backgrounds about the case law, why this is allowed, and that isn't allowed. People do not hear 90% of all the evidence, and most of the time if they did, they wouldn't understand it.

What people do not realize is, however, the Judge had the power to do what is known as "Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict", used more in civil suits.

But I'm not sure there is any better system. If more people would agree to bench trials, and there are truly impartial judges that know the law and issues, maybe it would be more fair.

And, just a side note: people are not charged with a crime unless there is overwhelming evidence that they truly are guilty. Even though you hear of these things, they are more "rare" than common.

Answer 4

These are all interesting responses.
What kind of system would you rather have? In Europe before there were trials by jury there was trial by ordeal (picking up a piece of red hot iron), by combat (if I kill you in judicial combat then it must mean that God is on my side), and by character affirmation (I have more credible witnesses than you do who swear I'm innocent). It seems to me that all these methods are lacking.
Or you can just let the judge decide. In the Roman Empire the magistrate was the prosecuting attorney, the judge and the jury. This system is very open to bribery.
In short, there is no perfect system. There probably never will be.
As science progresses (especially forensics) there will be less and less doubt about the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

Answer 5

I agree with everything you wrote. For the love of God, I wish
people would get together & revolt against the injustice.
200 yrs. ago, people were allowed to say more than yes or no.
The way the lawyers get away with double talk & twisting
questions is a disgrace.
And, I don't think juries should be kept away from the media.
Recently, I've seen a Cold Case, or one of those shows,
where, you know the guy is innocent, yet he was serving life.
It was heartbreaking & only the town sheriff said he was guilty.
The sheriff was such a creep, I wouldn't be surprised he
was one who committed the crime.
I'm definetly in favor of reform.

Answer 6

The problem may go the other way. It seems like anyone summoned to a jury wants to get out of it unless they are retired or work for a public utility that will pay them for jury duty. Most juries may not be a true cross-section of the community, just of the people too stupid to weasel out of it.

Answer 7

I agree with you. I think we should abolish the jury system. Why should a criminal be judged by people like him? I think it would be much better if high and mighty people judged the lowest of the low. I think we should get rid of the legal system entirely and life or death sentences for all crimes, great and small, should be meted-out by a star chamber of anonymous judges with no accountability to anyone. Juries are so stupid. It's a waste of time for a butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker to judge his peers. We should have really important people like Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Cindy Sheehan, Gwyneth Paltrow and Oprah Winfrey do the judging of our defendants in America. Only then would we get a verdict with which we can all agree.

Answer 8

I think you're imagining a problem that isn't there. No system will ever be perfect, ours is as close as anyone's gotten.

If you shouldn't be judged by a jury of your peers, who should you be judged by, one person? What if they're having a bad day? What if they don't like fat/skinny/red headed/blonde/chinese/black/disabled/athletic/passive/creative people? Every person has their prejudices whether we admit them or not. You can't put someone's life in one person's hand.

There are always going to be mistakes, but I think you're a little paranoid past reality.

Answer 9

If it were created as originally intended, a jury of one's "peers," it would be fine. However, it seems these days the majority of people who are on juries are, as my brother's attorney associates call them, too stupid to get out of it.

It's also skewed to people who don't work (unemployed and retired), or who can afford not to work.

Answer 10

as long as someone has been shown to be responsible previous a lifelike doubt, i imagine capital punishment is a good component. Deterrent to crime? possibly no longer, notwithstanding that is a make certain that the guy who's responsible will under no circumstances commit yet another crime. State subsidized homicide? certain, yet ninety 9% of the time the way someone is finished is a lot extra humane than the shape in which he committed his/her crimes.