Jury Reform

Discussion in 'Politics' started by radicand, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Clearly, our embarassing intellect of people called to jury duty means there is truly a need for some type of jury reform.

    They must be held accountable for finding people guilty of charges never put forward.

    They must be held accountable for being too stupid to differentiate inconsequential comments that are unrelated to a present case as a reason for acquitting an obviously guilty person (I am talking about O.J.).

    They must be held accountable for their vote.

    Clearly, there is too much stupidity going on in court rooms.

    What can be done?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's the judge's job to make sure inconsequential comments are struck from the record, and the jury acts within the law, such as finding on actual charges.

    Holding the jury accountable in any other way is illegal and immoral.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Does that not say it all!!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
    John Jay, 1st Chief Justice
    United States supreme Court, 1789


    "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
    Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice,
    1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration


    "the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
    Oliver Wendell Holmes,
    U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902


    "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
    Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice
    U.S. supreme Court, 1941


    "The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
    U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    'Being judges of the law and the fact, they are not bound by the law as given to them by the court, but can assume the responsibility of deciding, each juror for himself, what the law is. If they can say, upon their oaths, that they know the law better than the court, they have the power so to do. If they are prepared to say the law is different from what it is declared to be by the court, they have a perfect legal right to say so, and find the verdict according to their own notions of the law. It is a matter between their consciences and their God, with which no power can interfere.' Fisher v. People (1860) 23 Ill. 283, 294.
     
  9. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638

    No where in all of this has it ever said that the jury has a right to be irresponsible and unnaccountable.

    No where!!!

    That is where the accountability needs to come into play. They must be able to reasonably explain their vote. The defense should be able to understand why and if those points would merit an appeal.

    Citing things that you do not understand means nothing. The fact to matter is what you are saying is that if a jury decides to charge you with murder in a case that has nothing to do with murder is not only legal, but moral.

    Surely, these quotes did not mean that a jury has a right to run foul of the cases presented before them.

    I do not ever want to read about your bitching about someone's innocence after they have been convicted. You have now lost that right to bitch. Basically, according to you all jury decision are correct, legal and moral.

    I truly wish all you leftist slime would leave this country and form your own uptopia. Maybe you can find amidst the radical Muslims you usually defend!!!

    But, of course, I am not above the fray as you are!!!
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    The first post of this thread is a common cry heard from people who most often have never served on a jury.

    A few weeks ago, I served on a jury in a criminal trial. For me, the experience was actually a very positive one. The mix of people on my jury was diverse, but everybody approached the matter in an intelligent way, bringing to it their own individual experiences and perspectives. Any one of the 12 people involved may have had difficulty reaching a decision on their own, but the combined efforts of 12 people reached what I am confident was a fair and just outcome.

    Since people are called randomly, the average intellect of jurors should surely be equivalent to the average intellect of the general population.

    This must be a weird Americanism. This cannot happen in Australia.

    I can only assume that the US has distorted a perfectly good system, again.

    In Australia, things are very different.

    Jurors are ONLY judges of fact in any case. The judge decides questions of law. The jury must apply the law as they understand it, acting under the direction of the judge as to what the law is. Obviously, some interpretation is required, even of the basics. In a criminal case, for example, the jury must determine guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", but the legal term "reasonable doubt" is nowhere defined. It is up to the jury to decide what is or isn't a reasonable doubt.

    It surprises me if, in the US, the jury can in effect make its own law, as the above quote seems to imply. Surely this is not the case?
     
  11. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The Fat Lady hasn't begun to sing, yet.
     
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    A jury can give any verdict and it is legally binding, James R. They can free a man who was found in the process of the act, on video-tape, and with DNA evidence.
     
  13. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    James,
    In America, each lawyer has the right to eliminate a certain number of jurors for no reason whatsoever. So the lawyers get to hand pick the jury to make sure no one is too smart, or too pro-law and order.

    Add to this, most people don't want to serve on juries because they can't afford to miss work.

    So juries are made up of primarily of stupid, unemployed people.
    It's called jury nullification. Judges don't want juries to know about it, but a jury can decide anything they want. In the early days of America, juries were told they were to judge both the defendent and the law. If they thought a law was unfair, they need not convict. Such basic freedoms as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and peaceable assembly have their origins in jury nullification.

     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Juries don't have the power to bring charges, but they do have the power to dismiss them for any reason, and they are under no obligation to explain themselves. This is the last defense against tyranny.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    The situation is the same in Australia. However, the jury cannot introduce new charges, or convict somebody of something they were not charged with in the first place.

    All that lawyers know about potential jurors in Australia is their name (except in certain cases) and occupation. They cannot trawl through a juror's opinions or personal life before the case.

    Is the situation different in the US?

    In Australia, you have to apply to be excused from serving. If you do not have a valid excuse, you serve. And missing work is not a valid excuse in and of itself. Clearly, most people will miss work by serving on a jury. The court decides.

    In practice, that can happen in Australia, too. A jury doesn't have to give any reasons for its verdict. If it decides the charges are unjust, they can acquit. But they can't make up different charges and convict on those instead.

    Can they do that in the US?

    This also applies in Australia.
     
  16. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    James R.:

    Neither can they here.
     
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Completely. Before serving on a jury, you fill out a huge questionaire. For instance, no one who opposed the death penalty may serve on a jury where the death penalty may apply.

    The lawyers know all about you, and there are experts in jury selection. Getting the "correct" jury is over half the battle.
    Sure, I think it's the same. But all you have to do to get out of jury duty is wear a suit. Lawyers don't like people in suits. Too intellectual. Or say you oppose the death penalty. Or hate black people. It's really easy to get "out" of jury duty as the lawyers are looking for any reason to remove someone.

    No, but they can convict you for whatever reason they want. Look at the guy who killed his wife and was out with his girlfriend right afterwards. I can't remember his name, but it was all over the news. Anyway, there was very little evidence, but the jury convicted because he was a scumbag.

    Same thing with a woman who may have poisoned her husband with arsenic recently. The defense expert witness destroyed the prosecution's case. There was basically no real evidence. But because she got a boob job and entered wet T-shirt contests after her husband was killed, they convicted her of murder.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    The main difference I can see between the US system and the Australian one is in the matter of jury selection.

    On the one hand, I can see problems with the prosecutor and defence knowing too much about a juror's opinions. They will obviously select a jury who they feel will have the appropriate biases to acquit or convict.

    But perhaps the important question is: do BOTH the prosecution and defence get to review jury members? Because, if so, the outcome should be reasonable. The jury won't end up with anyone strongly biased one way or the other, because any person with a strong bias will have been ruled out by the other side.

    Is that right?
     
  19. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Yeah, they both get to be in on the selection process. But rest assured that they can't just kick people off willy-nilly ...there must be a legitimate reason. Plus they each can ONLY kick off a limited number ...the jury process can't go on indefinitely with the attorneys trying to get exactly what they each want ......it don't work like THAT.

    Baron Max
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    So, both sides don't get exactly the jury they'd like. I can't see a huge problem with that.
     
  21. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    All-in-all, I think most people would agree that the average Joe Blow on a jury is simply not knowledgeable enough to accurately judge the case ...LEGALLY. It's also a case of playing to the emotions of the jury ...if one attorney is good at it, while the other presents only the facts, the jury can be swayed so as to convict the defendant on emotions rather than the legal facts. OJ Simpson trial was a good example of that ...the facts were simply insurmountably compiled and presented, yet.....?

    If juries could have all of their emotions ripped out prior to the trial, it might actually work. As it is, it seems like a crap shoot sometimes! I heard an interview of a juror in a case here in Dallas ....he said, "Geez, the trial was sooooo damned long ...we just wanted to get the hell outta' there!" Forgive me for saving so, but that doesn't sound like the kind of juror that I'd want on my trial ....how 'bout you?

    Baron Max
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    But that's not the jury's job. They are there as judges of FACT.

    They are directed on what facts are relevant to apply the law.

    True.

    I agree entirely.
     
  23. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    The questions they can during the selection process ask are strictly limited.
    In a criminal case against a black person, it will obvioulsy be an unfair trial, if a member of the jury were racist against blacks.
    The questions that are allowed are there to prevent such occurrences.
     

Share This Page