Overhauling the jury system

Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
698
Reaction score
1
Location
Los Angeles
Now that the game is over, I switched to fox news and Garaldo is on discussing the up coming Michael Jackson trial.
This leads me to say something I have thought about for many years.
I began thinking about changing the jury system during the O.J. Simpson trial.
That jury was"loaded "from the gitgo.
It is my feeling that the current system of jury selection should be abolished in favor of "professional jurors"
These professional jurors would be hired by the state wherein they reside, paid a decent wage and in fact, would be their only job, 8 hours a day.
They would not be aware of the trial they would be sitting in on, until the day the trial starts.
Being a professional "pool", they would more than likely be more impartial to any given case before them.
They could objectively decide a case soley on the evidence presented.
No media pre trial publicity to cloud their judgement.
The problem with jury selection at it is today, leaves to many loop holes for biased jurors to be seated.
Case in point;
The potential jurors for the Jackson trial are being asked questions that are a matter of history.ie, are you a fan of Michael Jackson?
Do you have an opinion on the former charges brought against him?
Are you married? Do you have children?
All these things are biased in determining guilt.
These are "loaded" questions.
They leave to much room for a biased juror to lie in order to get on the jury.
Given the impartiality of a professional juror, these questions would never, ever be asked.
In fact, no questions would be asked period.
The day of the trial, 12 peolpe file into the court room to sit in on the case at hand.
No pre trial publicity, no picking jurors sympahetic to one side or the other.
I have always thought this is the way to go with the jury system.
Stop the wasted time in picking just the "right" jury.
 
Professional Jurors leads to corruption in hiring practices. I think juror selection in felony cases should be stricter, but the jury pool works fine as it is.
 
CaptainZilog said:
Professional Jurors leads to corruption in hiring practices. I think juror selection in felony cases should be stricter, but the jury pool works fine as it is.
Click to expand...

DITTO
 
i say, let the people of the county take a vote on it, and the sentance...that way you get a better view of what people want...and if not the whole country, atleast the immediate area will be happy.
 
MrWilson said:
i say, let the people of the county take a vote on it, and the sentance...that way you get a better view of what people want...and if not the whole country, atleast the immediate area will be happy.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a lynch mob.
 
I like the idea of a paid jury system. I don't see the potential for corruption since the jurors would come from a pool like they do now.

I did my civic duty last year and went through a jury selection process. Almost everyone there didn't want to be there, especially in the case I was assigned to. A young woman (15) went to the hospital complaining about abdominal pain. Turns out she was full term and supposedly didn't know she was pregnant. She was made to wait for a long time. She locked herself in the bathroom and delivered her baby and drowned it in the toilet.

I would never have made it through that trial. A professional juror would have been a much better choice.
 
It's your civic duty to be a juror. Life is hard and rough. Candy coating it by assigning people to mete out punishment so you don't have to deal with it is as undemocratic as you can get.

Yeah, the trial you mention would have been sad to sit in on. Life has lots of crap in it: Man up to the challenge. You want a good society? Be a good juror.

Making a profession out of determining the outcomes of purported criminals will totally eliminate the fair trial process.
 
Just the opposite.
Professional jurors would be schooled in criminal and civil law.
There would be no favoritism toward any one case.
Criminal cases would be adjucated with the expertise of professionals much better than a group of potentially biased jurors.
The paid juror would not be motivated by possible book deals and publicity.
Being a juror would be their only source of income.
It would be a completely voluntary program, just like applying for any job.
I have yet to see any thing that would be better than a professional jury system.
The biggest advantage to this system is the courts would not be tied uip for months in jury selection like they are apt to be in the up comming Jackson trial.
Lawyers and proscuters would not have the advantage of "picking" one juror over another in an effort to help their case.
Professional jurors would be completely in different to any case.
Their job would be to decide the case strictly on the evidence, not pre trial publicity.
The court would not see the jury until the court conviened, that way , lawyers, judges and prosecuters would have no idea who is on the jury.
This system would work.
 
It is a compelling concept. One that I believe ought to be tried.. No Pun intended!! OK, Maybe.... LOL

As bad as our system is when the accused are found guilty, it is even more offensive when we run across a jury that cannot do its job, held hostage by one foolish person.
The proposal of such a group of professionals would sure elminate the ignorance factor. The average person is rarely familiar with legal rights. Realistically, is the average man ever likely to be in a jury box? Probably not! The idea of giving up their salary or business for an extended period of time to do jury duty is something the average person would run like hell from. And lets be honest the most clever/intelligent that you would like to have on a jury, don't want to sacrifice any time away from their jobs, especially "Contract" type work. It is very easy to be dismissed as a potential juror. A few comments like "My cousin the cop", or any racially loaded wise crack and your back to work!! We all know that its done...

Our current system is quite ridiculous anyway. The notion of being innocent until being found guilty by a jury of one's peers, an idealistic concept.

As trials get longer and more complicated, it is unreasonable to ask someone to take six months or a year away from their jobs and day-to-day life to sit as a juror. Equally, as trials get longer and more complicated, it is unreasonable to have lay persons try to understand some of the complex legal and technical issues in many types of criminal procedures. Having a professional in this role with some Law knowledge can be very beneficial to all. Unfortunately in our society, those who are that intent on learning Law usually become lawyers. So if the Pro-Juror concept is ever tested, they better be paid well, otherwise the Law educated individual will be sucked up by firms across the nation.
 
Jamler3 said:
Our current system is quite ridiculous anyway. The notion of being innocent until being found guilty by a jury of one's peers, an idealistic concept.
Click to expand...

While it may be an idealistic concept it is a far better one than assuming YOU are guilty simply because YOU have been accused by anyone who can get someone in power to listen to them and then YOU must prove that YOU are innocent. That is a concept that was in use for thousands of years, and still is in many countries we like to think of as backwards. It falls in line with the concept that YOU are obviously guilty simply because YOU were hauled in. Think about YOU being in that situation!

To be tried before professional jurors would be little different than being tried by a judge. The idea of having citizens as jurors is to act as a balance to the power of the judiciary, which is running a little wild right now.

Take a look at laws and how they've been enforced over time and you may think better of the current system, even though it is not perfect it is much better than many other places. Only active citizens can make it improve.
 
The "power of the judiciary" would not be entangled in my proposal.
These professional jurors would be completely independent of the courts.
They would be used by the courts but, the governing council would be established within a citizen board, in each state, which would have complete control of the jury system in that state.
This board would have a commissioner and delegates throughout the states to implement the program.
The less the judicial system has to do with the jury, the better for all.
The biggest factor we need in the jury system is impartiality.
A person hired to be a juror in any state, would be completely independent of any court, including the court, or courts he or she may be assigned too.
They would be paid by the state, and only answerable to the citizen commission set up to oversee and implement the jury system.
Now, a simple example.
What would you rather see in the up comming Jackson trial?
Would it be better to spend the next month or so picking just the "right" jury, hand picked by the defense and prosecutor, knowing full well that these jurors are either against Jackson or, think he is the second comming of Christ?
That is the thinking we are open to now with the current system.
With a professional jury, it wouldn't matter who is on trial.
The jurors would not know until they entered the court to begin hearing testimony, the specifics of the trial, and, whome is on trial.
This would be and end to "loaded juries".
 
What?

Man, you guys mustn't have much concept of how juries work. You are not expected to be a pro, and that's a GOOD THING. The idea is for the lawyers to convince you (the common layperson, aka A PEER) either their client is in the right, while the judge's job is to levy the legal system to make sure the lawyers do not overstep their bounds.

As it is, the JUDGE chooses the jury. The lawyers have a small say, if they think a particular juror has a bias, but the judge chooses overall. It's a very well thought out set of checks and balances. It would be difficult to insert corruption into all three aspects of the mechanism, and therefore it provides the defendant a sound legal system. Juries should not be legal professionals. That would defeat the whole point.

Besides all that, who would want to sit on trial after trial? There is no way a legally trained professional would be a professional juror. Not only that, but you have now severely limited your jury pool. Drawing a non-partial jury would be far more difficult (and don't pretend pros don't have bias, beacuse that's preposterous. We're all human.) and maintaining said jury pool would be expensive. You've also just reduced the jury to one demographic: lawyers. Great... Also, there is no way to keep the pool out of contact with everything. This is really starting to sound 1984-ish. Mach8 is right as well, this would just be a bench trial. The judge already knows the law, and WAY better than any lawyer. So why not just eliminate the jury?

Jamler - this might piss you off, but that is seriously the saddest thing I've read in a long time. "[A]n idealistic concept" my ass. It's completely absurd that you would do away with due process. I don't really think you've thought of the ramifications of removing that clause. Here, this might be simple but it illisturates one reason that that particular phrase is in there: some asshat come in to your work and they want your job, so they say that you stole from an account you manage. You didn't, but now you have to prove your way out of the crap he just dug you in. What a great method for removing obstacles for those without morals!

Bob - No disrespect, but you give professionals far more credit than they deserve. Everyone has bias. You cannot stop that, it's inevitable, they aren't friggin' robots. If they hear a snippet of anything about, say, Jackson, in the news EVER - they're comprimised as an unbiased source. Maybe they heard Thriller in 1982, there's bias in that. People are flaky and unreliable, even well educated people. Also, adding money to this whole situation is bad. By making it a living, if someone feels shorted, they may become susceptible to bribery.
 
"Also, adding money to this whole situation is bad. By making it a living, if someone feels shorted, they may become susceptible to bribery."


Are you advocating that jurors today are above being bribed?
You have made some good points but, I still contend the professional jury system would be light years ahead of the current system. As for "checks and balances", the jurors themselves would create the checks and balances in the system by being unbeholding to the courts.
The letter of the law should remain with the courts and judges but, the decision in and court proceeding requiring a jury would, and should be left to the independent juror hired to fullfill that need.
Professional jurors would not become celebrities like thoes in the Scott Peterson trial.
Some of them already have book deals.
That is crazy.
Jurors should be decesion makers in a trial, and nothing else.
They are jurors, and nothing else.
They are not authors, nor are they to be pawns in the latest news gossip or scoop for the rest of the media.
A professional jury would be bound by rules set up by the commission, one of which would prohibit them from public appearance in the news media, be it written or spoken.
No after trial interviews as to why one decided as one did.
Today's lay juries are nothing but tools of the judges and the news media.
Ths system needs to change.
 
Bob Hubbard said:
The "power of the judiciary" would not be entangled in my proposal.
These professional jurors would be completely independent of the courts.
They would be used by the courts but, the governing council would be established within a citizen board, in each state, which would have complete control of the jury system in that state.
This board would have a commissioner and delegates throughout the states to implement the program.
Click to expand...

What a layer of bureaucracy! What opportunities for graft, corruption, and bureaucratic stupidity! This is not a step forward.

Who here has actually sat on a jury? I have. I was not, nor do I feel the other jurors were anyones "tools".
 
Are you advocating that jurors today are above being bribed?

Yes, because they are nearly completely random and kept under guard until the trial is over (whether it ends in mistrial or a result is given).

The system you suggest removes the juror from society. That's a bit too Orwellian for me to swallow.
 
ANYONE who has no moral or ethical base may be bribed.

ANYONE maybe blackmailed or threatened with violence.

It makes no difference if you're a profesional or an amateur.
 
Mach8, true, but the current juror selection process keeps the juror's identity a secret until the trial end. If you talk, you're out and the trial ends.
 
CaptainZilog said:
Are you advocating that jurors today are above being bribed?

Yes, because they are nearly completely random and kept under guard until the trial is over (whether it ends in mistrial or a result is given).

The system you suggest removes the juror from society. That's a bit too Orwellian for me to swallow.
Click to expand...


And a professional jury could not be kept random and protected by guard ?
By random I mean annonimity.
Suppossing this system was in place and for one reason or another you decide to apply for a position as a state juror.
You live 15 miles from a mojor city in your state.
You are excepted as a juror, paid a decent wage and now, on to your court assignments.
Monday, tuesday and wenesday you are in the state capital city hearing a case.
Dileberation are finished in one day.
Friday, you are going to a city 50 miles away.
You will be there possibly for 2 months.
After that trial it's on to another city and another court.
The chances of you being bribed are non- existant.
No one but the commission, the guard, and your fellow jurors even know you are a juror.
The judge may possibly know you by sight but, certainly there would be no familialarity.
Annominity, not "orewellean" seclusion is the key here.
Take yourself on the local freeway on your way to work, how many people in the next car do you know, and more importantly, do you know what they do for a living?
I seriously doubt it.
Professional jurors are just like everyone else.
Some people are doctors, others secretaries, some painters.
What is wrong with having a select group of well paid professionals taking on the challange of bringing fair and just decisions to a system that is today infested with corruption and favoritism.
A couple of cases in point, The o.j.Simpson trial.
Even Marsha Clark stated that that jury was tainted.
The Scott Peterson trial, That man was convicted without one shread of bonified evidence.
Why did this happen?
Simple, the low paid, unprofessional jury of his peers were in a hurry and wanted to get home.
They were tired of the case.
They were broke.
They were away from their famlies for to long.
A miriad of reasons why Mr Peterson was convicted, none of which had to do with the evidence presented.
Even one of the jurors repalced stated as much.
A paid professional juror would no more rush to judgement than a doctor would abandon an operation half way through it.
 
The jury can only deliberate on the evidence and testimony the court allows to be used. This has the biggest impact on the out come of the trial. Any trial can be presented with important items being barred from the jury for many reasons. This is why good judges are important, as is good police work.


Here in California jurors are not anonymous. You don't get your name printed in the paper, but anyone around during jury selection or the trial can find out who the jurors are with very little effort.
 
You need records of said jurors for tax purposes, their SS#'s on file, etc... Many layers of corruptable persons touch their info. A jury lottery assures that the trial in which a juror is selected to serve is totally and completely seperate form the jury duty call, and that there is no way to plant a juror on a particular case. Very important. The onyl way a pro jury lottery would be acceptable is if it was publically auditable, which will never happen.

Now, when these people were saying the jury was tainted, they meant by the media. You will never ever stop that. The instant OJ was cruising down the interstate with a gun in the back of his Bronco - every American was a tainted juror. It's not like people got to them and implanted ideas. Totally media related, so a pro jury would be susceptible to the same interference. The instant Fox News, CNN, NBC, etc latched onto the Laci Peterson case, Scott was f'ed. They blamed him faster than they blamed OJ.

As to this quote: "What is wrong with having a select group of well paid professionals taking on the challange of bringing fair and just decisions to a system that is today infested with corruption and favoritism." That's a very utopian stance, I wish people could be trusted this way. But by linking a professional career to an ethics system, you've esentially linked money to power over another man/woman. That concept is not a healthy one for a purportedly free society. On a similar note, this system would give one small set of people a LARGE responsibility, basically power over everyone else, and I honestly don't think human beings are capable of handling it.
 
mach8 said:
Here in California jurors are not anonymous. You don't get your name printed in the paper, but anyone around during jury selection or the trial can find out who the jurors are with very little effort.
Click to expand...

That's weird. Here (IL), you are a well kept secret until it's over. Especially if you become part of a capital case. Jury selection happens behind closed doors.
 
CaptainZilog said:
That's weird. Here (IL), you are a well kept secret until it's over. Especially if you become part of a capital case. Jury selection happens behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

Even with all that the people most interested in influencing the jury are those present in the courtroom. So unless the jurors are kept unseen and are not allowed to go home, where they may be followed, I can see many ways a motivated person(s) could find out who they were. How paranoid should one get?
 
What's tainted? The people get information not spoon fed to them by the lawyers? Remember the lawyers are there for their client, not justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 70 (members: 0, guests: 70)
Back
Top