Time will be saved explaining the law before every case, and they could see through some attorney's twisting of facts and misdirection.
The only thing I see against this is perhaps corruption, payoffs, etc.
2006-12-22 04:08:12 · 7 answers · asked by traila_dwella 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
because in the consituitution it states that you will be judged by a panel of your peers. without biased...if they jurors are paid then there might be a biased in one way or the other.
2006-12-22 04:16:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are entitled to "a jury of your peers". The concept of professional jurors does not meet that description. There would be huge problems with professional jurors, not the least of which would be developing bias.
2006-12-22 12:19:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would LOVE jury duty but in almost 20 eligible years I have never been called to serve-I am a registered voter and am going to school for my paralegal degree.....professional jurist? bring it on.
2006-12-22 18:29:11 · answer #3 · answered by rwl_is_taken 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only people they'd be able to judge are other professional peers.
This is what I hate about voter drives. If you have to drag them along to register them, you have to drag them to jury duty. certain people are well aware and are happy about that.
2006-12-22 12:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by Curt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of corruption and payoffs, and also because we are supposed to have a trial of our "peers". Not people who are paid to listen and decide.
2006-12-22 12:11:01 · answer #5 · answered by badneighborvt 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would want a jury of my peers,like the constution provides.Professional jurrys would eliminate this.
2006-12-22 12:21:11 · answer #6 · answered by upforitupforitupforitupforitru 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You answered your own question.
2006-12-22 12:13:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋