I've always felt the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers is beyond idiotic. You're basically talking about bringing in 12 people to do a job for which they are in no way professionally trained, and putting someone's liberty - and occasionally, life - in their hands. All it takes is a few weaker minds or stronger personalities to convince them to change their minds (and often, as I've seen recently, more to do with the fact that these stronger personalities want to be seen to be the ones directing things, than that they actually believe the verdict they're trying to push) and they will fall in line. A sort of clique mentality: you're either with us or against us. How does that serve the interest of the person in the dock?
Is there any other task though, really, where you would trust what are basically amateurs to carry it out? And when the stakes are so high? Has anyone here served on a jury? Have any alternatives? I can easily imagine that the larger percentage of miscarriages of justice have been down to juries who either just want to get home, haven't really got a clue, or have been emotionally strongarmed into changing their vote. This does not, to me, seem anything like a good arrangement.And let's not forget jury tampering, whether it's bribes or threats, we all know it can and does happen.
Obviously, you know where I stand then, but what do you think? Interested to hear your views.
Juries are perfectly fine imo. To weed out the weaker bad candidates for jury, there is a jury selection period where both sides ask the potential juror questions. You should be able to weed put the dumb ones from that process alone. The way the system is set up currently is fine and I prefer having a jury of my peers being the ultimate one to decide over a lone judge. Having such a heavy decision rest on one person is awful no matter what preceived expertise you think they might have. I rather a jury of my peers that have listened to a case and presented all the sides to deliberate and come to a conclusion based off of evidence presented by both sides.
I have not served on jury duty because I'm not stupid. I make sure during the jury selection period that I come up with the most insane reasons why I wouldn't be an unbiased juror so they don't pick me. I rather watch the circus than be a part of it.
The system works barring what you see on TV shows about jury tampering, bribes and etc. In real life it doesn't happen as often as it does on TV.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 10, 2024, 11:24 AMI have not served on jury duty because I'm not stupid. I make sure during the jury selection period that I come up with the most insane reasons why I wouldn't be an unbiased juror so they don't pick me. I rather watch the circus than be a part of it.
:laughing:
I think it's bad idea. You only have to see the amount of trials by public opinion on well known cases to see how stupid the general public is and how often they get things wrong.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 10, 2024, 11:57 AM:laughing:
I think it's bad idea. You only have to see the amount of trials by public opinion on well known cases to see how stupid the general public is and how often they get things wrong.
It isn't their fault they get things wrong. It is the prosecution and defense attorneys fault. The so called professionals. If they do their job correctly then it is easy for the just to decide based off of the facts presented.
Juries are barbaric and it's insane that they're still a thing
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 10, 2024, 11:24 AMJuries are perfectly fine imo. To weed out the weaker bad candidates for jury, there is a jury selection period where both sides ask the potential juror questions. You should be able to weed put the dumb ones from that process alone. The way the system is set up currently is fine and I prefer having a jury of my peers being the ultimate one to decide over a lone judge. Having such a heavy decision rest on one person is awful no matter what preceived expertise you think they might have. I rather a jury of my peers that have listened to a case and presented all the sides to deliberate and come to a conclusion based off of evidence presented by both sides.
I have not served on jury duty because I'm not stupid. I make sure during the jury selection period that I come up with the most insane reasons why I wouldn't be an unbiased juror so they don't pick me. I rather watch the circus than be a part of it.
The system works barring what you see on TV shows about jury tampering, bribes and etc. In real life it doesn't happen as often as it does on TV.
😂😂😂
I'm sorry but there you already have a case for why jury duty is silly
Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 10, 2024, 01:37 PM😂😂😂
I'm sorry but there you already have a case for why jury duty is silly
Brilliant.
Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 10, 2024, 01:37 PM😂😂😂
I'm sorry but there you already have a case for why jury duty is silly
That's not an argument against it. Some people like doing their civic duty. I just don't. Just because someone serves on the jury doesn't mean they are dumb. They just want to be involved in the process.
yeah I understand that but surely you can see the irony in the way you phrased it, which did literally amount to 'people who get selected for jury duty are dumb'
I thought it was a good idea, until I was on a jury with a large number of idiots. No, lady, "just look at how he's dressed" isn't a good reason to convict someone.
Quote from: Janszoon on Apr 10, 2024, 07:19 PMI thought it was a good idea, until I was on a jury with a large number of idiots. No, lady, "just look at how he's dressed" isn't a good reason to convict someone.
:laughing:
From what little I've read, neither Germany nor Spain use juries, (Germany abolished them in 1924), Italy has some complicated stuff about "lay judges", and Norway abolished them though only in 2018. I'll research this to confirm it but it was said by an English barrister so I doubt they would have just made it up. In Denmark, I think it was, they give you a whole job as a juror. Everyone (I think) can be paid for a year as a juror, during which time they are taken to trials, explained the whole idea of evidence, reasonable doubt etc, speak to other juries I think; anyway it's a whole training thing so that by the end of the year they at least have some idea of what they're doing, instead of stumbling in blind. I think that's a great way to approach it, if you're not going to just leave it to a judge. In that case, of course, there are issues, as this is how it was back in good old Victorian times, when a half-asleep judge who didn't like the look of you could just pass the verdict and you had no say. But today, you'd like to think judges are educated and (cough) unbiased enough to make a proper decision.
@DJChameleon : would check the figures if I cared that much, but I really think jury tampering happens in the real world, not just in CSI and The Sopranos and Bull etc. After all, if someone approaches you as a juror and offers you a brown envelope, are you going to refuse? Or, conversely, if they casually start reeling off details of where you live, where your kids go to school, what nursing home your mother is in etc?
Personally, I was called twice. Once I had to go, but I was not selected. Second time I was looking after Karen, so was able to dodge it. She was even called once! You can imagine how that went! The trouble is that so many people do not want to serve, there's got to be a real incentive to get out of there as quickly as possible, and so the deliberation process suffers.
Again, I ask: from fixing your car to hanging a chandelier, or from driving a bus to handling toxic radioactive material, is there any other instance in which you would trust completely untrained, unprofessional people who have never done this before? It's ludicrous, in my opinion. And all this shit about leave emotion out of it? That's not possible. People are going to be fired up by photographs, descriptions, what happened in the case... nobody goes in there with a totally unbiased, pragmatic and logical view, weaken my eyesight and thin my hair if ... oh. Well, my point still stands.
Funny how Trolls posted this thread and a day later, OJ Simpson snuffs it.
One of the best examples of why juries are a bad idea right there.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 07:11 AMFunny how Trolls posted this thread and a day later, OJ Simpson snuffs it.
One of the best examples of why juries are a bad idea right there.
OJ's trial is a prime example of a good defense team not an argument for why juries are a bad idea.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 12, 2024, 10:09 AMOJ's trial is a prime example of a good defense team not an argument for why juries are a bad idea.
Members of the jury admitted to voting to acquit even though they knew he was guilty.
The defence team could have said anything they wanted, they'd still have let him go.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 10:34 AMMembers of the jury admitted to voting to acquit even though they knew he was guilty.
The defence team could have said anything they wanted, they'd still have let him go.
So they did the right thing. They knew he was guilty(personal feelings) but they voted to acquit based off of evidence provided by the defense team. System is working as intended.
Don't blame the jurors for the prosecution being shit at their job. They are the so called experts.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 12, 2024, 01:00 PMSo they did the right thing. They knew he was guilty(personal feelings) but they voted to acquit based off of evidence provided by the defense team. System is working as intended.
Don't blame the jurors for the prosecution being shit at their job. They are the so called experts.
Not according to one of the jurors themselves, who admitted that 90% of them, including herself, acquitted regardless of the evidence.
It was nothing to do with the efforts of the prosecution. They could have had HD footage of the murders and he'd have got off.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 01:14 PMNot according to one of the jurors themselves, who admitted that 90% of them, including herself, acquitted regardless of the evidence.
It was nothing to do with the efforts of the prosecution. They could have had HD footage of the murders and he'd have got off.
Idk if I believe that testimony after the fact. I watch a shit load of court tv and the jury is fine majority of the time. Her claims sound like it's in hindsight because of her personal feelings.
Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 11, 2024, 08:25 PMAnd all this shit about leave emotion out of it? That's not possible. People are going to be fired up by photographs, descriptions, what happened in the case... nobody goes in there with a totally unbiased, pragmatic and logical view, weaken my eyesight and thin my hair if ... oh. Well, my point still stands.
Probably, in the future, we'll have artificial intelligence doing the job. Don't know if we'll need 12 different AIs, but the AI used would need to be open source to provide a level of transparency that the rulings are not biased. There should be audits on the AIs used at regular intervals to ensure they meet some kind of established standard for the purpose of jury trials. Prime the public for the idea of AI-meted justice with a movie about it (or maybe...a Black Mirror episode) where a human jury botches a trial and then AI jurors are introduced in a retrial that reach the 'correct' verdict, based on all available evidence. As humans see AI taking over more and more important jobs and functions, I think they'd accept AI jurors, if they were led to believe that the verdict of trials would be 'more accurate, fair and just' (even if they truly weren't).
Only a matter of time. Here's an article discussing how AI will shape and influence jury trials in the near future, but it holds the position that they shouldn't replace human jurors. If AIs become persuasive enough, and their influence in jury trials broad enough, it won't even really matter if the jurors are human or not.
https://www.theclm.org/Magazine/articles/ai-and-the-future-of-jury-trials/2731
Also even though OJ was acquitted on criminal charges he was found guilty in the civil trial and died still oweing 30 million to the family. He also did time in prison for something that he shouldn't have had prison time for just because the jury/judge felt like he got off from his first criminal trial with zero time and needed to make up for it.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 12, 2024, 08:23 PMAlso even though OJ was acquitted on criminal charges he was found guilty in the civil trial and died still oweing 30 million to the family. He also did time in prison for something that he shouldn't have had prison time for just because the jury/judge felt like he got off from his first criminal trial with zero time and needed to make up for it.
Compensation he didn't pay :laughing:
Second bit just strengthens my argument. Juries are shit.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 08:25 PMCompensation he didn't pay :laughing:
Second bit just strengthens my argument. Juries are shit.
In OJ's case it really was the prosecution/cop's that screwed up though. The cops were being racist and trying to plant evidence instead of just using what they had access to. The reason he was found guilty in the second trial was because of evidence not presented during the criminal trial that would have sealed the deal more than the glove situation they went with. It's still not the jury's fault that the cops didn't do their job right.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 13, 2024, 08:35 AMIn OJ's case it really was the prosecution/cop's that screwed up though. The cops were being racist and trying to plant evidence instead of just using what they had access to. The reason he was found guilty in the second trial was because of evidence not presented during the criminal trial that would have sealed the deal more than the glove situation they went with. It's still not the jury's fault that the cops didn't do their job right.
They did fuck up but so did the jury. They admitted that they had other reasons for acquiting, so it really doesn't matter. And whether you believe it or not, the fact it's even a question is still a problem.