Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 145
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,810

    Professional Jurors

    As if we do not have enough controversy floating around, thought I would throw some more into the mix.
    Would you support moving to a professional juror system as opposed to the current jury of one's peers? Would that have made a difference in this case and if so would it have been at the expense of our current judicial values?
    Many people feel this trial was a case in point regarding moving to a professional juror system.

    Personally the thought of professional jurors makes me cringe.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    In the Pines
    Posts
    2,903
    No. It should stay. For the most part it does work as is.
    It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.


  3. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to JBounds For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    6,836
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    As if we do not have enough controversy floating around, thought I would throw some more into the mix.
    Would you support moving to a professional juror system as opposed to the current jury of one's peers? Would that have made a difference in this case and if so would it have been at the expense of our current judicial values?
    Many people feel this trial was a case in point regarding moving to a professional juror system.

    Personally the thought of professional jurors makes me cringe.
    I agree with your last sentence. A poster on another thread suggested using a jury split between professional jurors and non-pro citizen jurors.I kind of like that idea but maybe it would lead to more hung jury's?Pros voting one way and non-pros the other.


  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RANCH For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,494
    I have given this some thought over the years, however, I always come to a No decision. Biggest reason is, once exposed to a number of cases one becomes callous. That means instant guilty verdict.

    I have more reasons, but will keep it brief.

    I did see someone suggest 1 seasoned juror to help out during deliberations. I suggest 2 seasoned employees, State chooses one, Defense the other, to be in with the jurors to explain the instructions further, show where the evidence is to be handled, posted outside the door for any questions to take to the Judge along with the requisite Deputies.

    Still working on this issue in my head though.

    P.S. Thanks for the thread, I was too chicken to start it. Looking forward to the ideas posted.
    Last edited by 21merc7; 07-09-2011 at 12:28 PM.

    Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing.


  7. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to 21merc7 For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    As if we do not have enough controversy floating around, thought I would throw some more into the mix.
    Would you support moving to a professional juror system as opposed to the current jury of one's peers? Would that have made a difference in this case and if so would it have been at the expense of our current judicial values?
    Many people feel this trial was a case in point regarding moving to a professional juror system.

    Personally the thought of professional jurors makes me cringe.
    The idea makes me cringe too. Do we really have so little faith in one another that we don't feel safe being judge by a jury of our peers? I know I would take it very seriously and have been truly appalled since the outcome of the trial at the vile being spewed at the jury. The anger should really be directed at the prosecution, not the jury.


  9. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    784
    I have thought about this before and I think it might to the opposite of what we would hope for. In my opinion eventually they would get careless in the decision making process. Just like when we start a job and we are e x t r a careful after learning your job you just do it. I think eventually they would look at it as a days work and think they already know the guilt or innocence of a person.

    As someone stated I think most juries take their job with seriousness. These people as stated by many just got a bit lazy. Maybe lazy is a bit of a strong word but I think they made decision on emotion. Poor ICA emotion and her mean ole dad.
    Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.

    Psalm 37:3


  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hisimage For This Useful Post:


  11. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Posts
    1,293
    Quote Originally Posted by gladiatorqueen View Post
    The idea makes me cringe too. Do we really have so little faith in one another that we don't feel safe being judge by a jury of our peers? I know I would take it very seriously and have been truly appalled since the outcome of the trial at the vile being spewed at the jury. The anger should really be directed at the prosecution, not the jury.
    Really ? The State put on an excellent CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence case and was not required to prove how or why Caylee died ... the jury must make inferences from circumstantial evidence (see Scott Petersen) and eliminate reasonable doubt through those inferences. They were looking for the smoking gun and did not understand a circumstantial evidence case.



  12. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    112
    i'm not sure about professional jurors, but i think that this shows that some changes need to be made. people keep saying that the great thing about our justice system is that it would prefer for the guilty to go free rather than the innocent to be imprisoned. well, there ARE innocent people imprisoned, and when the guilty go free it endangers the innocent. so i do think we could use some changes.... although i'm not entirely sure what.

    one idea i had was that there should be at least one neutral third-party, well-instructed in the law as well as in explaining the law to laypersons, in the room during deliberations. if this person could serve to define reasonable doubt for the jury, remind the jury to base decisions on whether they feel the defendant is guilty or not guilty versus their feelings on the punishment (which they are not to consider), and ensure that they are properly deliberating and not bullying others into a certain verdict, i feel that something like that could have been helpful in this case.
    *******

    casey anthony on 7/16/08.



    pretty much everything i post is my opinion only


  13. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to ladylurker For This Useful Post:


  14. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Hisimage View Post
    As someone stated I think most juries take their job with seriousness. These people as stated by many just got a bit lazy. Maybe lazy is a bit of a strong word but I think they made decision on emotion. Poor ICA emotion and her mean ole dad.
    Interesting. I think they did the absolute opposite and took their emotion out of the equation. My guess is that is really at the root of why the masses are so upset with the outcome. MOO


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gladiatorqueen For This Useful Post:


  16. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    300
    Ugh, no thank you, no way. The country is bloated with goverment employees already. I can't imagine a world with 'trial by buracrat'.

    This is not the first irresponsible jury in our nation's history. One need only look at some of the cases up infill the 70's where juries dissmised the overwhelming evidence, as this irresponsible jury did, and aquitted white supremisits who murdered blacks.

    It's gone the other way too, when people have been found guilty on all counts despite the state not presenting even 1 piece of circumstansial eveidence, ( google Martin Tankleff ).

    Yes, this was a gross miscarriage of justice. Yes, it's not a perfect system. BUT no, it shouldn't be changed. It is still the finast, most close to perfect justice system in the entire history of mankind. Which is a long time !


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to downport For This Useful Post:


  18. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    519
    No to professional.

    Yes to severely restricting one's ability to dodge jury duty.

    First 12 names called are jurors (unless there are untenable circumstances -- eg relative of defendant or attorneys; one of attorneys represented your spouse in a divorce, etc.)

    You would have a mix of age, experience, education, vocation, intelligence, gender, race, etc.

    Much better than ending up with a group of 12 like this jury.


  19. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Italy For This Useful Post:


  20. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    9,081
    Eh, I wouldn't want professional jurors, but I'd like to see potential jurors take a competency test-- especially for the comprehension of legal terms and concepts. I think this jury didn't understand what "reasonable" doubt was.


    eta: Also, I think there was a problem with the sequestration, it was just too long for these people to be together and away from home. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it needs to be looked at. Perhaps not having them all at the same place and taking every meal together. idk


  21. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Quiche For This Useful Post:


  22. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    922
    I think they should just put a stiff jail penalty for juror who makes any financial gain before and after the case .. They shouldnt accept any freebies, hotels , etc- for any interviews or should not even write a book at all about the case they are in...

    Being a juror is a citizen duty not a part time job IMO


  23. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to February For This Useful Post:


  24. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysterious View Post
    Really ? The State put on an excellent CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence case and was not required to prove how or why Caylee died ... the jury must make inferences from circumstantial evidence (see Scott Petersen) and eliminate reasonable doubt through those inferences. They were looking for the smoking gun and did not understand a circumstantial evidence case.
    So the question is would you prefer professional jurors?


  25. The Following User Says Thank You to JBean For This Useful Post:


  26. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    9,081
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    So the question is would you prefer professional jurors?
    Professional, like a Grand Jury becomes, I would. In my neck of the woods they serve for one year... they get experienced, but don't necessarily arrive experienced. jmo


  27. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Quiche For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Professional Posters
    By JBean in forum Somer Renee Thompson
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 10:37 PM
  2. Professional Posters
    By JBean in forum Byrd and Melanie Billings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 04:59 AM
  3. Professional Posters
    By JBean in forum Alcala and the Unidentified
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 04:59 AM
  4. Professional Posters
    By JBean in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 04:59 AM
  5. 6 Jurors versus 12 Jurors ... who will this benefit?
    By one_hooah_wife in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 09:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •