why wont they choose people wit some kind of knowledge of tha law?
2006-12-01 10:23:31 · 16 answers · asked by ~%*Bubblesz*%~ 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Two reasons:
1) Statutory: as the others said "a jury of your peers" meaning a representation of the community.
2) Strategic: "regular" people are easier to manipulate and convince that your side is right.
2006-12-01 10:29:14 · answer #1 · answered by feanor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Two reasons:
1) "Jury of your peers" as stated many times above.
2) No one has mentioned this, but the judge will go out of his way to make sure that anyone with legal training will not be on the jury. This is because someone with some kind of legal training is going to come into the situation with certain assumptions about the case, and they will apply their "experience and training" to the information presented during the trial. This is a disadvantage to both sides (defense and prosecution) because the person will not be impartial and you never know what kind, or the quality of training that this person has received. They want open minds, not minds that are already halfway made up based on assumptions.
2006-12-01 10:34:03 · answer #2 · answered by Kevin P 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its the last bastion of control that court system has over regular people ...
Jury duty is totally invasive of a person's privacy, it can ruin entire semesters of college, new jobs and near impoverish a family with no money coming in and they don't care a bit.
They say its all about being judged by your peers, but I say don't equal me in with murders and thieves I aint' no peer!
I am very much for professional jurists!
Make it a regular job of people that do it for a living and they could get enough people if they paid a decent wage and rotated them irregularly so that no criminal could 'get to them'.
This picking out of a hat baloney is old and it's time for that system to go the way of the covered wagons and model T cars.
2006-12-01 10:37:22 · answer #3 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is supposed to be a jury of the defendant's peers, and the majority of people don't have a law degree necessary to have knowledge of the law. Plus, juries don't answer questions of law, they answer questions of fact.
2006-12-01 11:23:42 · answer #4 · answered by Katherine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the constitution states that a person "shall be tried by a jury of their peers". So average people sit on the jury. If only law people sat on the jury it would not be a fair trial constitutionally.
2006-12-01 10:28:07 · answer #5 · answered by mikis1967 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution calls for a jury of one's peers. In the increasing complexity of society, this is becoming more of a problem: it is not essential that jurors know the law (the judge explains all the legal points that apply to the case), but it is becoming more important that jurors know science and technology as these become more of a factor in life and hence in legal matters.
2006-12-01 10:29:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They do not choose knowledgeable jurors, because that would not keep the proceedings honest. "Professional" jurors would be much too easily corruptible.
Random jurors without any legal knowledge are easy enough to train regarding the fine points of the specific laws in question. The judge will give the jurors instructions at the end of the trial.
Random jurors are the public's only known methodology for keeping the proceeding honest. Everything else is potential, if not actual, corruption.
2006-12-01 10:31:50 · answer #7 · answered by bird_brain_88 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the law states that a person is entitled to be judged by a jury of his peers.
2006-12-01 10:26:00 · answer #8 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the law makes no difference about people. Every one is the same to the law...
2006-12-01 10:38:45 · answer #9 · answered by El calvito 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have the right to a trial by jury of your PEERS.
2006-12-01 10:31:03 · answer #10 · answered by curiositycat 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋