Is the American jury system a joke?

Question

A "jury of one's peers" carries with it all the prejudices and subjectivity that the random citizen brings to it. The job of a prosecutor is to convict. The job of a defense attorney is to acquit. The methods they use to win their case often involve a bit of smoke and mirrors to sway the jury to their side and the guilt or innocence of the accused becomes secondary to the goal of "WIN-WIN-WIN". It's illogical to expect a bunch of average Joes and Marys to reach a unanimous impartial decision with this type of system. A better means to ensure some semblance of justice would be to have a panel of legal experts or judges make the final decision as they do in some European countries. I rest my case!

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct. Having a group of "professional jurors" who actually know the law and repercussions would be much more beneficial. We wouldn't have such over-the-top millions dollar settlements for stupid things, and besides. Do you really want 12 people who were to stupid to get out of jury duty deciding your fate.

Answer 2

jury of ones peers is that.

you can't have only a select group of "professionals" to weigh in on a guilt . then you' are limiting ones peers to a very small portion of the populace. Meaning, even in this small group of professionals they wILL carry their own bias, even more so. The more 'professional' or "intellectual" , the more bias they carry.

AVeragre Joes and Marys are questioned before trial begins during voir dire, to give bot hteh prosectuion and defendant the ability to remove those who would be bias against them. This makes it fair for both side.

You do know that not everyone will be smart about the law, even the professionals.

The whole system of jury was to prevent government from handing down unfair decisions to those who may not be guilty of hte crimes they are accused of.

By stacking the jury with professionals, how do you know that they will be impartial? OR not paid off by "either" Side?

Answer 3

Actually, as flawed as our system is, I can appreciate it for what it is, and overlook the flaws. I would prefer to have someone else prove my guilt rather than prove my own innocence as many of the European countries with the style you prefer have a Napoleonic Code of Justice as opposed to the Roman one we fashioned off of.

While your average Joe or Mary may not be the most astute judge of the law, I find their judgements about the case in the end just as valid, if not more in step with society's current beliefs and stance than a bunch of lawyers with their noses too far in the books to know what's going on.

Finally, if you think that type of jury would prove better, I suggest you look at the civil courts where judges make a majority of the decisions, and I think you will find some of their choices just a baffling and partial as trying to get 7 people to agree on one verdict...

Answer 4

You are very much mistaken. This would put the juries in the same bureacratic progovernment group as our judges and legislators .That twist and distort the obvious meanings of our constitution, bill of rights and declaration of independence to suit the needs of government .That rob our citizens of freedom and liberty and money. Many laws they pass are in direct violation of the constitution and the oath they swear to honor and obey .Juries are the only tool for the people to control government and maintain all liberties to keep government with in their boundries and protect the people .Juries are not to convict citizens for oppressive government but to protect the citizens from government tyranny .Even the duties of juries are not told people on a jury by judges and if you know your rights as a jurror they will take you off the jury panel . A jury is not only to judge the innocent or guilt of the person on trial .But also the law and the fairness of the punishment for violating it . If you think it is a bad law or the punishment is not fair you have a duty to find the person innocent ,even if you think he is guilty of the crime . Most of our citizens don't know this because judges dont tell them . You can get a lot of information on the responsibilities of juries from (The fully informed Jury Association) or (The american Jury Institute ) they both have web sites .The only reason you think like you do is because you are not informed about juries .I recomend everyone check these web sites .Its your duty as a citizen to be aware of our responsibilities in government

Answer 5

IF IT'S NOT BROKE WHY FIX IT. YOU'RE TO PRESUMPTUOUS IN YOUR REMARK. YOU SAY THAT
AMERICANS ARE TO DUMB TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. THE SAME HAPPENS IN EUROPE THE DEFENSE TRIES TO SWAY THE PANEL OF SO CALLED EXPERTS AND THE PROSECUTOR DOES THE SAME. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS PANEL OF EXPERTS AREN'T PREDISPOSED TO JUDGMENT ? IT'S ONLY HUMAN NATURE. WHAT IF A PANELIST IS HAVING A TOUGH MARRIAGE HE MIGHT BE PREDISPOSED TO TAKE IT OUT ON WOMEN DEFENDANTS. THIS PANELIST WILL HAVE LONG TERM EFFECTS HE MIGHT TAKE IT OUT ON A DOZEN WOMEN DEFENDANTS, BUT A JUROR WILL ONLY HAVE THE CHANCE TO EFFECT ONE DEFENDANT. THUS LIMITING ANY MISTAKES TO ONE DEFENDANT. NOT MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS LIKE IN EUROPE. I REST MY CASE

Answer 6

I'm not sure of why you're asking this. Maybe we should ask the judges in my parents' country of Mexico, where the judge decides in favor of whoever pays the judge the most.

Answer 7

this is a few data that could marvel you: homicide fees are bigger in states with the loss of existence penalty than in those without it. the main important marvel: The loss of existence penalty certainly fees lots, lots extra suitable than existence in penitentiary (with or without parole.) existence without parole is on the books in only about each and every state. It skill what it says. families of homicide victims have testified to the drawn out and unavoidable harm that the loss of existence penalty technique does to families like theirs and that existence without parole is an proper selection. maximum extreme: there's little question that persons have been sentenced to loss of existence for crimes they did no longer commit. It comes right down to despite if to assist the loss of existence penalty for the sake of revenge or retribution regardless of its extreme flaws and the huge toll it exacts on society.

Answer 8

It is really dumb that they use an even number of jurors. Really! There are so many odd numbers out there too...