2007-12-21 15:40:38 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
there should be a jury school just like there are law schools for lawyers. a jury pool of regular people sometimes get a guilty man out of jail to murder again. so instead of getting a jury pool of people who don't understand the law, they should be comprised of professional jurors who actually understand the law. the process of jury selection wastes so much time for the courts anyway, shouldn't the courts find a way to make jurors easier to come by like making it a profession.
2007-12-21 20:29:47 · update #1
I've wondered about this...
not lawyers,though - they aren't impartial enough.
This 'jury of peers' thing though -
where you going to get 12 ex-football celebs to sit on O.J. Simpson's trial ?
2007-12-21 16:02:22 · answer #1 · answered by sirbobby98121 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The role of the jury is to make a determination about the FACTS of a case. The jury is not supposed to know any more about the law than what they are told by the judge/court. I'm in my last year of law school, and we refer regularly to the jury as the "fact finder." The jury's job is to determine whether or not x happened, not what the legal ramifications are, or what law governs.
Who best to determine whether or not x happened than a group of regular old folks? I trust in the concept of a group of basically competent people from the community coming together, hearing the evidence, and making a reasoned decision. They don't need to know anything about the law. The most you can ask of a jury is that they know a little about life in the community, and how to put pieces together, weigh evidence, and decide whether or not they're convinced (to whatever degree of certainty) that x happened. That's ALL the law asks a jury to do.
2007-12-25 01:51:42 · answer #2 · answered by anna13 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never thought I would say this but there aren't enough lawyers to fill the jury boxes. hahahaha!
Basically, a juror has to be impartial, able to listen to both sides of an issue and make a decision BASED UPON the direction of the judge. There are no special skills.
A lawyer would want to ask more questions, can't do that as a juror.
2007-12-21 23:46:45 · answer #3 · answered by yackycritter 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there should be a number of people who are trained as jurors. When a trial comes around, 12 people from this 'jury pool' are selected and that's the end of it.
None of this nonsense of the lawyer's trying to get the jury they think they want.
Trained, experienced, paid people who WANT to be doing the job rather than the whole world trying to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
While I agree with the concept of "jury of your peers", it doesn't actually happen in real life. If a poor person from a ghetto is charged with a crime, is the jury really made up of his peers? I think not.
2007-12-21 23:58:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The system calls for people to be judged by a jury of your peers. Yes, lawyers know the law better than the rest of us do, but for the system to be fair, we should be judge by ordinary people. The law is explained enough to juries for them to do what they need to do.
2007-12-22 12:56:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say , create a market for jurors as a profession and leave the rest of us citizens out of it . If it was a regular job they may not spend days picking a jury . Could be a new begginning .
2007-12-22 00:12:17 · answer #6 · answered by fairly odd Rod 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
-defense lawyers would hate that! how can they lie for their client when the jurors who are lawyers know are their tactics!
-they dont have time! they have their own clients to deal
-every field of law is different. so an atttorney that specializes in criminal law, wont have all the background to know what an IP attorney knows. The criminal attorney lawyer will be as cluess with the info provided like any other juror!
2007-12-22 02:46:24 · answer #7 · answered by lareinaii 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question, and my answer is quite possibly yes. People (like myself) are very easily swayed by attractive, well-spoken, and passionate lawyers, which is just human nature.
However, the constitution says "convicted by a jury of your peers," and I doubt anybody's gonna change that anytime soon.
Oh well.
2007-12-21 23:44:52 · answer #8 · answered by Katiecat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no...regular people are needed to be "a jury if your peers"
2007-12-21 23:44:24 · answer #9 · answered by takemymulligan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
technically....it can't be done, but I think it sounds like a good idea. How many ppl out there really understand all the courtroom lingo?
2007-12-21 23:45:27 · answer #10 · answered by natasha d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋