Is it time to abandon Juries or is a Jury essential to Democracy? Should research into juries should be permitted. Not least research into the composition of juries. For example how many jurors have criminal records? In England prospective jurors are asked 'Have you been sentenced to a prison term of over 18 months in the last 5 years.' Anyone who answers 'No', truthfully or not, is in. However Where does it stop..how long before the Muslims, Blacks, poor and illiterate are deemed as undesirable to be permitted onto a Jury? Can we trust just one man - the Judge - to reach the correct decision>
no we cant it will always take more than one man to punish someone. jurors are essential to court because they can and often go against what the judge says. i personaly think that if you have poor english then jury service isnt for you, but i cant see a time when blacks, muslims or the poor will not becomme a juror. i dont think though that every juror should be subject to strict back ground checks
Well I hope so..if only because most Judges in the UK appear to be in the pockets of the Govt and the Establishment at the time. But some would argue and..with some justification in my view...that in extremely fraught cases such as the OJ trial. It might be a better idea for the Judge to make a decision than a Jury of members who have been hand picked solely because they knew nothing of the Case. (in other words they were not the brightest tools in the box).
I think there are major problems with using juries. It's like democracy, using juries is the worst way to run things, except for all the others. There is some reason to use a judge rather than a jury, especially in a case that raises highly complex or highly technical issues that may be beyond the ability of the average juror to understand, but there are also dangers is relying on the judgment of a lone individual, as that person is more able to act capriciously than a small group. Judges are also presumably more likely to hand their decidion on the minute technicalities of the law rather than looking to administer "justice" as an overriding principle. What I think they should do is keep the juries, but leave them out of the courtroom. Let the juries read the transcripts of the trial, once it's complete. Too much of what goes on in court is in teh nature of mugging for the jury and attempting to ingratiate yourslef with displays of wit and charm. Those charismatic effects (or their reverse, the bias against ugly "dangerous looking" defendants) would be diminished on the cold reading of the transcript. The main problem would be that jury service would be a complete bore, and you'd probably need to limit the jury pool to the literate, but (i) it's not like any more people could try to weasel their way out of jury duty and (ii) you could have the report read onto an audiotape (like Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic does) for the illiterates (and Dyslexics).
If I ever end up in court, I'll ask for a trial by judge, not jury. Judges understand the law better than juries. A judge has a better understand of evidence being thrown out and not considering it. As an individual, I'm not certain I would be able to 'unhear' something. Nope, I would not want a jury.
Well, if you're looking to recover a significant amount of damages, say for pain & suffering, you would definitely want a jury. Judges hear cases where the plaintiffs claim pain & suffering constantly, and are therefore numbed to the claims and arguments of client and counsel. The last thing we need in the judicial system is some conservative minded judge who believes that every broken arm is worth, and only worth, $16,000. You wouldn't want just one person determing all of the facts of the case. People off the streets bring with them a lifetime of experiences, and the jury pool is simply the most fair and adequate means of achieving justice. In my state, judges are elected officials in all but two counties; do you want a politician with his own agenda to fulfill deciding a matter, or well rounded people from all walks in life? Judges do know the law, but seriously, in the vast majority of cases the jury instructions from the judge about the law are pretty simple to follow, and you don't need a J.D. behind your name to apply them.
A agree juries are important. I just think we shouldn't let the lawyers tailor the jury so much. Jurors should be chosen randomly with no one excluded unless they have some personal connection to the case or being on the jury would be a real hardship.
In federal court, the judges do most of the work on voir dire, and give the attorneys about 10 minutes each to ask certain questions. State courts generally require the attorneys to ask the questions. Random is good. In my state jury pools have grown from just registered voters to anyone over 18 who has a driver's license. The pool is selected randomly on a per quarter basis (every 4 months). If lawyers didn't pick the jury, how else do you weed out those with certain bias or prejudice on your case. If it is a personal injury case, for example, you certainly don't want someone who does not believe in awarding damages for pain & suffering. Should we just leave it to the judge, who really knows nothing about the facts of the case, the temperment of the respective clients, or whether certain criteria necessary to prove the case would be fairly interpreted by a prospective juror?
There is no jury in most European countries. In Latvia if it's a serious crime then 3 judges participate in the case. If it's in high court then as much as 7 judges may judge. The sentence is determined by voting. As a lawyer I think that the no-jury system is fairer, because judges are professionals and are not easily influenced by tricks of lawyers, personality of the offender or victim, etc. - just law and evidence.
Law is always open to interpretation. Jury is carefully selected (in U.S.). Both the lawyer and the prosecutor ask questions to estimate the amount of bias that the jury candidate might have. Does this person generally distrust police? Does he distrust white people? And so on. Yes, jury is necessary to democracy since it voices public opinion; also, it is a check on lawyers and judges (judges may be corrupt or biased themselves).
I think the jury should represent a random cross section of society regardless of their opinions on the issues. So long as they have no personal connection to the case, they should be good to go. To specifically address your comment regarding the awarding of damages for pain and suffering: Imagine 90% of the population felt there should be no such damages awarded. Allowing the lawyers to weed out every juror against "pain and suffering" damages would maintain them in our system despite the fact that the public was dead set against it. Is that just? Look at the death penalty. I'm strongly in favor of it. Many people are not. But you can't get on a death penalty jury unless you're in favor of the death penalty. Is that right? Another example is punitive damages. I've long thought that if they are imposed at all, the money should go to the government. It's basically a fine to punish them for their bad actions, why should a private party recieve that money?
I don't necessarily disagree with you statement, but .... Whatever happened to the ideal of "a jury of one's peers"? For example, if the accused is a white, middle-class, high school educated, ...., then shouldn't the jury be as close to the same as possible? If the accused is a drug-dealing, murderin' scumbag, shouldn't the jury be made up of drug-dealing, murderin' scumbags? Okay, okay, that was silly, of course. But what does it mean "a jury of ones peers"? And isn't that something that we should try to accomplish? Baron Max
I'd say it's a random sample of people from your community. That is, the place you live, not some hand picked group of people likely to let you off.
"Peer" means a random sampling? I don't think so. Do you think, for example, that Donald Trump is a "peer" of everyone in NYC? Baron Max
For the purposes of a trial, I'd say yes. Your peers are those who share whatever geographic area the court you are being tried in has juristiction over.
First, every person going to trial, whether civil or criminal, has the right to a fair and impartial jury that is capable of following the law. If 90% of the people do not believe in pain & suffering damages, then they should speak with their state congressman to change the common law. Pain & suffering are damages which the common law permits upon a preponderance of evidence of the existance of pain, suffering and mental anguish, in any amount that the jury views as just (with obvious due process safeguards intact, of course). You do not have to believe in the death penalty to sit on a death penalty case. You just have to open to the idea, and not dead set (hehe) against it. The legal philosophy of punitive or exemplary damages finds root in the common law of England. In Indiana, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the need to maintain punitive damages as a means of punishing or detering offenders for what may be construed as quasi-criminal behavior which the criminal justice system is not equipped to handle. For example, if you are grossly negligent in driving your car (e.g. you knowingly or willfully blew a stop sign), and you injured another, you may seek punitive damages. To obtain them, you must go beyond a preponderance of evidence and provide "clear and convincing" evidence of gross neglect. This burden of proof, while higher than preponderance, is lower than "beyond reasonable doubt." Thus, the civil justice system fills in the gaps where the criminal courts either lack enough evidence for beyond reasonable doubt, or there simply is no criminal charge that can be brought, as in the case of insurance companies plundering their duties of good faith and fair dealing in settling a claim. In effect, the State cannot bring a claim on behalf of the victim to obtain punitive damages. That right does not exist at common law, and the State would be overburdened if it was required by statute to pursue all quasi-criminal acts to obtain "the fine." While some people view punitive damages as a windfall to a successful plaintiff, in reality the defendant singled out that person for intentional, willfull, or gross neglect, and must by some means be punished or deterred from doing the same or similar conduct to others in the future. In other words, it is a lesson teacher. So why should the State, who does nothing toward bringing justice in such circumstances, provides no financial or legal assistance to the victim, and requires nongovernmental attorneys and their clients to spend the money to obtain the punitive damage judgment be given the punitive damage award? Why should the State financially benefit when it carries absolutely none of the financial risk or burden in seeking punitive damages? Is not a judgment, which is a property right, taken without just compensation if the plaintiff is required to give away his award of damages in what amounts to taxation without representation? Yes, punitive damages performs a societal function of punishment and deterrence. However, it is the civil justice system, not the actual plaintiff, who is doing the punishing and deterring. As the actual plaintiff is the ONLY entity capable of accomplishing this deterrence, an award of exemplary damages should rightly go to the person whose "civil" rights were trampled upon.
Yes, the term is "jackpot justice". Because the purpose of "punitive damages" is to punish the offender, not reward the "victim". It offends me to see someone awarded punitive damages far in excess of any actual damage done. It turns the legal system into just another casino.
Well what if, for example, a person is a victim of racketeering by a 100 million $ corporate entity, sustains actual losses of only about 20K, and the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be met? If the victim can prove racketeering by clear & convincing evidence, does not the eggregiousness of the injury require an amount that does in fact punish and deter the same or similar conduct in the future[? How much would that be? The answer is: it's anybody's guess, which is why a jury, as opposed to a judge, is the better option in arriving at what a fair amount should be. Either way, it's a windfall to the State or the victim. Since it's civil justice, not criminal, it is fair to give the award to the person who has paid the price to obtain justice. In a standard personal injury case (not malpractice), the usual out of pocket cost after trial is about 10K-15K. If punitive damages are involved, it's an extra 5K-10K. This is risk on the victim himself, not the State. The civil justice system is very much like a casino -- with the odds stacked heavily in favor of insurance companies and corporations, particularly if you're in federal court.
