Many claim it would eliminate tampering, etc..
They were discussing this last night...
2007-03-05 03:02:17 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I've served.
I've also seen people go to extreme lengths to avoid it. An excuse, any excuse, to avoid civic duty. It doesn't compensate people - no matter who you are, if you take time off from work to serve, you're going to lose money.
So in a sense it's paid already - perhaps they should simply increase the rate a bit.
Just think about who'd apply to sit on a professional jury. That's more frightening to me than the way things work now.
2007-03-12 17:46:01 · answer #1 · answered by pepper 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Professional juries in some cases increase the possiblility of tampering. Have you ever seen any field where all experts agree? Why do we get a second opinion from doctors? One of the rules of juries is that a jury cannot use their professional knowledge in deciding a verdict. With so many professionals we don't get a cross section of the community as is Constitutionally required and we lose the essence of what a jury is.
2007-03-05 05:48:23 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. Luv 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we should. There are too many variables, too many assumptions, in trials. I think a professional jury pool would be just the answer, people who have been specifically trained to do this specific job. A pool is a good idea, because not every juror will be the right fit for every trial.
EDIT:
1) It's "peers", not "piers"
2) Jurors are already chosen by the system and paid by the system
3) Why you would want rookies on your jury is beyond me.
4) I propose having the same system we have now, where a bunch of people get called in for jury duty, but only a handful are carefully picked for a jury trial. The only difference would be that the pool of people is the same each week.
2007-03-05 04:01:00 · answer #3 · answered by Milana P 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think that would be a good choice. I work in one area of the CJ system but I come across Offenders in many other areas. I would always be booted off a jury for knowing someone and that could taint my perception of an accused man or woman, not saying it would, but think of the others in the system, some who are not so moral. I just don't think it would work.
2007-03-10 16:43:04 · answer #4 · answered by Rhode Island Red 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. A jury is suppose to be a jury of your piers and if they are professional jurors they are paid by the system and will probably picked by the system. THIS WILL ELIMINATE YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING A FAIR AND UNBIAS RULING. If we allow this then before you know it, we all will be at the mercy of paid attorneys, the court system and now controlled jurors. I for one would rather take my chances that someone might be honest in the system. After all it was set up this way for checks and balances of the system.. and if the jurors are controlled who will monitor the system?
2007-03-05 03:17:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I belive they could desire to be paid for there time yet yet with the help of hiring experts you shrink your self say extensive style #2 and #5 r acquaintances they'll factor with one yet another and say jur #6 understands the guy on trial and takes available opinion of that individual in there vote it would be chaos
2016-12-18 15:41:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds great. They should recruit the jurors from those who have the most points on Yahoo Answers. Those folks seem to have all the opinions that everyone agrees with.
2007-03-05 03:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
no, i don't think so
EXCEPT - maybe in patent law. those cases can be so highly technical that sometimes, lay jurors just cannot comprehend what the case is about
2007-03-05 03:40:30 · answer #8 · answered by BigD 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Answer to your Question NO! They should puff puff then pass pass!
2007-03-05 09:19:28 · answer #9 · answered by bulabate 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋