In today's courtrooms, issues are brought up that many jurors admit they don't understand. Forensics, especially, has become very sophisticated and complex. Lack of knowledge and understanding on the juror's part could potentially be the difference in life or death for a person. Jurors are just folks like you and me, and I know I might be intimidated by a trial and all the details if I was asked to serve. Do you think there should be professional jurors as opposed to lay people? Professionals could be trained in all aspects of forensics, the science of DNA, psychology, human behavior, etc.
2007-02-07 12:29:18 · 7 answers · asked by Angelique 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Absolutely not!!! First of all, I assume they are still polling human beings with functional brains to serve on juries, however, I did serve on one jury and there was one person who did have questionable mental abilities. I understand where you are coming from with your question and in a way, I agree, the jury pool has become the cesspool of the unemployed, impoverished, nothing to do housewife rather than a random pick of the defendant's "peers" which would normally include lawyers, doctors, accountants and people with higher than a GED. Since the system is such that most "professionals" know people to get them out of jury duty, the pickings is slim because of it. And yes, I know I'm slighting myself, but in retrospect, I CHOSE to serve and didn't try to get out of my duty.
2007-02-07 12:36:10 · answer #1 · answered by mac 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The people that would hire and train these people would have to come from somewhere right? Chances are these people would come from the government. So you would have government trained jurors and this would give the government more power than it already has and this is A VERY BAD thing. I just served on a jury yesterday as a matter of fact. I have a second trial tomorrow evening. It is the job of the lawyers and witnessess to explain this stuff to the jury. Not to mention that often times, when people are trained in something, they tend to believe that their way is flawless and there is no room for any other opinions. You would have EXTREMELY biased people on the jury.
2007-02-07 20:37:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most courts specifically avoid jurors with technical knowledge not available to the general public. If the prosecution can't present the evidence in a form the average person can understand, they don't understand it any better than you. And no, professional jurors could not be trained in all aspects of forensics, DNA, psychology, etc. NO one is an expert in ALL aspects of any of those fields.
2007-02-07 20:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Besides all the excellent points you mention there is also the fact that a lot of well educated, intelligent people (the people who just might be able to understand all the technical evidence) find ways to get out of jury duty. Because of this and all the points you've mentioned above, I have thought for years that we should move in the direction of professional jurors.
2007-02-07 20:35:44 · answer #4 · answered by Emily Dew 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We have professional jurors...they are called lawyers. The system in place works fine. As in many cases the parts that are hard to understand are read back and clarified. The idea is to be judged by a group of your peers, everyday folk just like you.
2007-02-07 20:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. If the jury need things explained to them they can ask the judge. More than likely the Judge will need things explained to them too. Their business is law, not forensics. A professional jury can be swayed and bought off. The system we have is a good one.
2007-02-07 20:34:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I were on trial, I would not want to place my life in the hands of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty, or worse, wanted to be on the jury.
2007-02-07 20:45:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋