Eplain why you agree or disagree with this observation...?

Question

"Jurors are the weak spot in the court system. They are not qualified to make decisions on cases about which they have little ot no knowledge. In addition, many do not take their duties seriously. Therefore, juries should be replaced by elected officials whose knowledge of law would enable them to make wiser and more judicious decisions."

Answer 1

I'm not so sure they should be elected, look at our politicians. But, I do agree that jurors aren't quite right.

Answer 2

I agree that juries are the weak link. I have very few peers, and would resent being tried by those I'd consider to be inferior in life experience. However, what you suggest, an elected body to be professional jurors is very similar to John Stweart Mill's "Utilitarian" society. He thought that society would be best served if only the truly "Qualified" were permitted to decide what "Good" is. Good music, good, theater, good everything. If you were not an expert in the given field, you had no say what you were to be permitted to see or hear. Example. I studied music for years, was quite successful. I hate rap. So, because I hate rap, the rest of society would never be permitted to listen to rap. Professional jurors? They would probably already be expert in the field of law. Why then would we need a judge? The judge is supposed to oversee the process much like a referee at a football game. It would then just be the defendent, the lawyers and the jurors overhearing the case. And if the jurors never understood or took into account the accused's life experiences?
No, the only REAL problem with our system today is money. If you have enough money you can beat any wrap. "If the glove does not fit, you MUST acquit!" And fifteen years later he writes a book about "What IF I had done it...?"

Answer 3

Absolutely agree. According to research done by the Institute of Psychiatry one in 5 people suffers some from of mental illness! That means on average at least 2 jurors are at least irrational but maybe bonkers. In theory mental people should disqualify themselves (along with people who work within the legal system!) Do you think any nutters ever disqualify themselves?

Most complex cases get acquiited particulary financial fraud because average Joe is too uneducated if not stupid to understand the issues. That's why if you're going to rob a bank do it using a computer not a shot gun. Numerous banks have covered up cases where their own staff have defrauded the bank and got away scot free.

The usual argment for lay jurors is that they establish guilt from what the accused peers would believe without shadow of doubt. The problem with this is that no jury is truly representative of society anyway. Lawyers can challege some jurors (if they are old or wearing suits the defendant lawyer will try to dismiss them; if they are young, similar background to accused they are kept). Lawyers understanding of the law means at least some idea of what should be considered will occur whereas currently lay jurors having no technical insight will ignore what should be contemplated when considering the law even if directed by the judge and resort to their own personal prejudices. For example whites are far more likely to be acquiited than blacks in the USA.

My understanding of elected officials are lawyers being elected to the jury NOT politicians. This is GREAT because it makes the lawyers answerable to the public ultimately as if they try people in such a way that upsets the public they can expect to be removed. Such an instance would be say the trial of police who beat Rodney King. The jurors were the families and friends of the police so ignored Video evidence. If elected officials did this then the public would know they were racist and corrupt and replace those jurors that showed american justice to be prejudiced.

NB The John Mills argument used by Doc isn't valid as jurors whether composed of peers or lawyers do NOT decide what is good or bad, nor do they make laws. Government makes laws and the law courts test if laws have been broken by citizens. The role of jurors is to decide only if they believe beyond reasonable doubt that a law was broken - and someone who has knowledge of the law is bound to decide this better than someone who has none!

Answer 4

It's the "elected official" part I don't like, because we all know if you wave a dollar bill at an elected official, they'll do anything you want. having been a juror i took my duty very seriously and it was what i considered a frivolous lawsuit, aimed at getting a windfall for virtually no reason. the problem with jurors is, and I'll use OJ as an example, they sometimes allow their prejudices guide their decision, be it pro or con. if, as in his case, a juror were at one time a fan (or heard testimony in the favor of a defendant in other cases, maybe "he's a preacher" and the juror is a born again) it may sway them to act against the evidence. the statement about "not qualified to make decisions on cases about which they have little or no knowledge", well isn't that the attorney's job to give them that knowledge?

Answer 5

I disagree, because jurors should be impartial. If you get elected officials to perform these duties, (as jurors), they will always have a hidden agenda and might prosecute when the person is really innocent, so that the public will be happy with their decision. When you get just normal everyday people, such as a housewife, a carpenter, a manager of a company, and others, they can input more because every one is going to be thinking in different levels, of intelligence and experience. I must agree that some jurors do not take things seriously, but in that case the person in charge of them, should then send a note to the judge and explain that there is trouble with a juror and what the trouble is. That is my answer on this. I have been a juror, in mock trials and in real trials.

Answer 6

I can see some instances in which some crimes (child molestation and other emotional cases such as these) in which a jury could be a weak link because no matter how hard they try, their emotions can make their decision, rather than the facts. I can also see how some jury members don't take their jobs seriously.

However, I wouldn't put it in the hands of elected officials, as there are too many political hacks with an ax to grind. They would not be any more impartial than a jury.

How about a group of professional juries who have some legal training and knowledge and won't allow their emotions to get the best of them.

Answer 7

I would have to disagree because there is no true way to completely tell if someone is biased or unbiased based on their experiences or background. It doesn't matter whether they have professional experience in law or not. It's the job of the lawyer to present the case to influence the jurors.

I think elected officials would cause corruption within the system rather than make wiser decisions. Someone who is familiar with the ropes is more likely to find the loop hole than a regular person summoned to jury duty.

Answer 8

Well, I can see your point on jurors maybe not being qualified, but are you out of your mind saying ELECTED officials should replace them. Elected officials are nothing more than morons, most of the time, living off Daddy's money. They are no more intelligent than the average Joe, they simply have better connections. I went to college with this guy who is now in the State Senate. He is an idiot!! He was the drunkest, most stupid frat boy, that I have ever met, but his Daddy had money. So really what's the difference. Joe on welfare, or Joe whose Daddy has money? One is no more intelligent than the other, maybe just forgiven for his stupidity. Think about it.

Answer 9

I agree with your statements that jurors are not qualified but have to say elected are officials less qualified and there isalwaysthe temptation for bribery. Jurors should be have some training in the cases they handle, I think professional jurors would be better.

Answer 10

I disagree because I believe that jurors are a strong point in our system. I for one would rather be judged by twelve of my "peers" who are given guidelines about how to interpret the legal case that is being made than by people who are elected based on their views, and who will be concerned about how their vote in a case will effect their next election. Sure, juries make mistakes (as do elected officials for that matter), but more often than not I believe they decide rightly among themselves about the fate of the other citizen on the stand. Were it not for juries our trials would be decided by ideologues rather than by the people who live and work in our communities. Also, most people who are called to serve for jury duty come away from the experience saying they have MORE faith in our system than they did before.

Answer 11

I hate to admit it but I agree. The jury pool is made up of those who want to be on a jury (if you don't want to be there it is pretty easy to get out of it) and the fact that they want to be on a jury suggests that many of them may have a personal agenda that has nothing to do with the justice system. This agenda may not become obvious during jury selection which can and many times does result in a jury filled with people who are there more to make a point than to uphold the law.