How To Fix The System?

Here is my idea of how the fix an obvious broken jury system. A simple fix. There are more lawyers out there then work. The lawyers know the law better then anyone else. So starting when a lawyer gets their BAR practicing ticket here. Have them have to do 6 months of random jury duty. As part of getting a law degree. The same idea as a doctors residence in a way. And have all lawyers have to do 3 months of jury duty every 5 years to keep their law ticket to practice. That way several problems would be addressed. The randomly mixed legal law degree jurors would have the knowledge of law on the side for deliberations. The science testimony end would be cut to a much shorter degree in all trails. The lawyers would always be refreshed in that it is about a search for truth, not winning at all costs in court. There would be far less chance of lawyers arguing smoke and mirrors cases for the prosecution or defense. And the lawyers would get an insight into ever so many more cases for an "outside" none prejudicial view.

I am sure you good people have many good ideas here. What passes for a justice system now is clearly broken. So lets hear some ideas here please.

Interesting you should suggest this.

I just word searched the US Constitution and nowhere is the word "peers" used. It is a court interpretation. Well, as we all know, subsequent enactments of law cannot reverse or change prior court decisions that interpreted prior law, but from that from the new constitutional provision enactment date forward new laws can be in effect that change the status quo.

Lawyers are prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. No reason why the law cannot be changed so there is a new career field -- attorney jurors. They can be empaneled and paid professionals.

hmmmmmm.... I know this isn't going to be very popular but I don't see our system being broken. Although I may not agree with a verdict, the jury system works pretty good in my view. Having lawyers as a jury? I'm not quite sure how that would be or could be fair to the defendent. Is it because you think they will look at the law only? We get arguments from the prosecution and defense as it is which means to me that they don't have the same view of the law. Personally I think our system works very well.

The prosecution should be held to a much higher standard especially in a death penalty case.

Ima

There is nothing broken about it, imo. There are hundreds of trials every single day with jurors who do their civic duty perfectly well and are not the subject of every single program on TV.

I find the idea of professional jurors abhorrent and counter to the very ideals upon which this country was founded.

This case will be studied in law schools for years to come. Both sides can learn from it. Its not all bad. But to suggest that one trial should redefine the entire court system in this country is really scary to me.