Do you have faith in the jury system?

Answer 1

I have faith in the system, but agree completely about not becoming a defendant.

The system does have flaws tho, & the chief one being a jury is comprised of 12 average citizens possessing their own set of values, biases, & perceptions (correct & incorrect)

Part of the challenge is too many folks don't pay attention to the instructions they must follow for a case.

My one experience on a jury involved a paternity case. A couple divorced, the man remarried , maintained a friendship & according to him she enticed him w an emotional problem she wanted to discuss & ....yada yada yada. A baby is here.

The man said he held the baby in his arms & could tell w his inner feelings & instincts the child's not his. DNA test says 98.6% likelihood of paternity.

We get verbal instructions that are responsibility is to consider the testimony & physical evidence & reach conclusion he is or is not father.

Slam dunk right? several people on the jury, including the person who volunteered to be jury foreman drifted into a discussion of whether his ex had tricked him into having sex & what her motivation might have been....etc

Finally I could bear anymore & just said hey.." do you believe paternity was proven?" Period !!

Attended a 5 day trial of the Mall Security Chief who assaulted my Dad when he was picking up mall receipts by clubbing him w a pipe 3x & taking the bags.

Among tactics defense used to sway the jury was the possibility the assailant might commit suicide if sentenced to prison time...studies show a higher risk factor for suicide w first time incarceration. An expert recited statistics in support.

Don't know if jury actually considered probation instead of ANY prison, but the argument had them looking very attentive...& all the defense needs is ONE person worried they would be responsible for the suicide of this charming 31 yr old man who had no priors before beating a 70 yr old mans head bloody to syeal money for his girlfriend who had threatened to keave him.

They gave him 23 years in prison....except, time out !! The judge learns a few days later about one of the jurors violating instructions & typing a blog about how he wanted to see this guy get maximum time.

The judge concerned the conviction could be overturned on appeal declares a mistrial & the whole thing is repeated a year later requiring my Dad & Mom to go thru it all again. This jury was sent to deliberate sentence (guilt voted earlier that day) at 2:45 pm on Friday afternoon of their fifth day day as a jury.

Jury reconvened at 4:40 pm w sentence of 20 years in prison. BTW the judge had already informed them to take whatever time was required, but if sentencing deliberations went past 5pm she would adjourn & reconvene them Monday morning as several jurors had indicated childcare issues requiring adjournment by 5 or so.

The guy still got a significant sentence, but Dad felt violated again in some respects as they "won" him a lighter sentence.

I suspect the jury was ready to be done & not have to miss work & rearrange their lives an additional day & may have reached a compromise to get out quicker & I can understand that dynamic, but it could have more severe consequences on a different day w a different case....

I read proposals brought forth to utilize "professional jurists" who would still be screened by both sides, but would have (presumably) a better feel for their responsibilities.

The current system tho flawed is superior to some other options, but don't be the DEFENDANT is still the best plan!!

Answer 2

An inquest jury cannot convict anyone of a crime - but they can bring a verdict of unlawfully killed or murdered. So if the jury were directed to find those in the frame innocent you can bring a private prosecution - provided the jury have brought about a finding of unlawfully killed. What was the final verdict? You are absolutely right though our leal system is a joke and until such time as all legal proceedings are properly recorded and can be viewed over the internet and justice seen to be done we will remain in the hands of corrupt judges, lawyers and policemen.

Answer 3

Not entirely. Juries can be manipulated by lawyers just as the public in general can be manipulated by political propagandists or advertisers.

It is not always easy to get a jury to see the facts when the opposing lawyer spins them in a different light.

Just look at the OJ Simpson case as an example of a jury gone wrong. One black juror said to the TV reporter afterward, "We saw our Brother in pain and we knew we had to help." Often, a jury makes a decision based on something other than the facts and the law.

Answer 4

Yes, I do. While there may be problems with jury selection, qualifications of the eligible jury pool, etc., remember that there are thousands of cases each day that apparently go about as you would expect. And with today's news coverage, you are only shown the weird or extremely disturbing results exposed, and exposed, and exposed.
Take OJ's case. If you thought he was guilty, then you would certainly feel that he used his fame and money to win his criminal case. But, one outcome out of thousands is not really that important. It just seemed so at the time because of the sensationalism surrounding the case.

So, overall, yes, I would rather risk putting my decision to 12 people who are supposed to be impartial than 1 man with a gavel. For the death penalty, if 1 judge is wrong, you would die. With jury, if one person is wrong, you live.

Answer 5

Are you kidding have you seen the jurors?
Ever served in Jury duty?
That is a laugh? you have to be really lucky today. Most of them are really screwed up. People that have nothing to do serve on those things, everyone knows they can get out of them if they want to so you won't see too many with the intelligence above a slug.

Answer 6

No, because most jurors, myself included feel that jury duty is a big burden and a bother so most people might go with the flow and vote for a decision just to shorten the process up and say to hell with guilt or innocence. I also say that they have no incentive to actually participate in the justice system because of no reward or payment for doing such duty with exception of a small stipend.

Answer 7

No! I have no faith in the system at all. Best thing to do is be a good person and obey the laws because if one gets into trouble then you better have a lot of money to buy some justice. ( Lawyers )

Answer 8

Absolutely, except for when they're wrong.

It may not be perfect, but its the best system in the world.

(Still, I would prefer if attorneys cared more about getting to the truth than just winning the case. Seems to me it would work better that way.)

Answer 9

most of the time--

Answer 10

I BELIEVE IN DIVINE JUSTICE.