Professional Jurors

New Posts

the selection process should stay as it is as i would like ti have a chance to sit on a jury for an interesting case... having professional juries would take the randomness of being called up... however, would still leave room for 'jury influencing' as apparently happened in this case... i think one or two biased (against the death penalty) got through... since they were in all probablity 'professional debaters' on the subject, they were able to sway the fence sitters/followers... i was surprised during the jury selection process how and why they picked certain jurors... i think they went for strong 'against' and 'weak or follower' others knowing what the result would be... the prosecution should have paid their jury selection consultants a bit more to get a more even mix... jmho...
 
I would not be in support of this. For one, what kind of training would be required? Any sort of training would move it more toward a decision made by a panel of judges rather than a jury of peers.

As someone who served on a murder trial, I would be in support of something like a court appointed mediator that sits down with the jury before and perhaps during the trial to answer questions and help them better understand the process and their duties. Yes, the judge technically serves that role but I think people are hesitant to speak up because it's not a quick Q&A with the system of having to send a note, have it read in open court and answered without the opportunity for immediate follow up questions.

This may not be the right place for this, but I have to say that I was surprised that this jury was allowed to take notes. We weren't because the judge said we'd miss new things while we were busy writing down what we just heard.
 
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it was a guilty verdict. I think it's a crying shame that this issue only becomes a concern when the masses don't get the outcome they think they deserve or are hankering for. It's not trial by popular demand, but trial based on sufficient evidence. There wasn't sufficient evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. I am not convinced that professional jurors would make a difference on that point--they are still human.
 
Who would flock to and dominate this profession? Wannabe prosecutors? Wannabe judges?
Wannabe enforcers? Unequivocally, NO, to professional juries.
 
gladiatorqueen said:
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it was a guilty verdict. I think it's a crying shame that this issue only becomes a concern when the masses don't get the outcome they think they deserve or are hankering for. It's not trial by popular demand, but trial based on sufficient evidence. There wasn't sufficient evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. I am not convinced that professional jurors would make a difference on that point--they are still human.
Click to expand...
Of course we would have this discussion. This question has been on the table for a long time. Conversely, there are those that feel people are unfairly convicted because jury did not understand the evidence. I personally support this jury and the current system 100%; but many do not and that is understandable.This is a 2 way street.


So the question continues- would this be a reasonable alternative to our current system?
 
epiphany said:
Who would flock to and dominate this profession? Wannabe prosecutors? Wannabe judges?
Wannabe enforcers? Unequivocally, NO, to professional juries.
Click to expand...
Funny, you don't mention wannabe defense attorneys ...
 
Mysterious said:
Funny, you don't mention wannabe defense attorneys ...
Click to expand...
How would you feel about a professional jury comprised of retired defense attornys or retired prosecutors or retired judges? Would a mix of each be reasonable enough to comprise a balanced jury?
 
I think it is an interesting concept...one that I had never heard of until yesterday. I have never really understood what constitutes a 'peer' in the context of a jury anyway. It would seem to me that it is basically just any law-abiding citizen that is deemed able to be impartial. :waitasec:

I am not sure I see a huge downside to this, other than what someone said about becoming too 'callous' in the process, but that could be eliminated by putting a time limit on service. Is this system used in other countries? It might make for interesting discourse.

At the very least, I agree that there should be a competency assessment prior to jury selection. I don't believe that this jury understood what 'reasonable doubt' means. I also think that the forensic evidence testimony may have been over the head of many, and it is admittedly very tedious. :twocents:
 
gladiatorqueen said:
Here we go again. I guess that is a very subjective point of view. I don't believe they provided enough evidence either. Are you suggesting that I don't understand a circumstantial evidence case? I beg to differ on that one.

I actually think it would be dangerous to have professional jurors for this very reason. You want individuals with the least amount of bias as possible in each and every jury.
Click to expand...

And do you honestly believe that the Anthony jury did not have any bias before they were seated ? Living in Pinellas County, you would have had to be living under a rock to not to know a lot about this case. It was plastered all over the news for 3 years and everyone has HLN, FoxNews, etc on cable/satellite nowadays.
 
JBean said:
How would you feel about a professional jury comprised of retired defense attornys or retired prosecutors or retired judges? Would a mix of each be reasonable enough to comprise a balanced jury?
Click to expand...
Might be a lot of hung juries with that mix, but I do like the idea.
 
No to professionals. That could get really political really quickly and the last thing we need is a bunch of politicians who want to keep their jobs deciding cases.

We do need some changes, but I would say no to professional jurors.
 
I don't know if it's a much better idea given the amount of Supreme Court decisions and arbitration decisions decided by panels of professional arbitrators I've disagreed with lately.
 
I'm not sure about having professional jurors just yet. However, I do believe that there needs to be a change made to the existing jury system in place as soon as possible and that needs to be a requirement that no juror can sell or receive gifts in exchange for case-specific interviews post jury-duty. I also think that jurors should not be allowed to write/sell books about their own case-specific jury-duty experience. If they want to write a book about jury-duty in general - so be it - that is not a personal infringement and can't be claimed as one. JMO~
 
no way is my vote for professional jurors. ((resounding no)) this would be a little like a bench trial would it not???

What I would like to see is all work places having to compensate for jury duty no matter what the length of the trial and the court being able to compensate jurors who have plane tickets/plans, etc and also providing funds for kenneling pets, etc for longer trials (a fund if you will)
 
Training and or testing might not be a bad idea not unlike poll workers go through. Then at least they know what circumstantial and direct evidence is.....They understand guilt and penalty phase. A safety net of the judge reviewing the verdict might be nice so that we at least know she didn't walk on a murder charge because she was cute.
 
Mysterious said:
And do you honestly believe that the Anthony jury did not have any bias before they were seated ? Living in Pinellas County, you would have had to be living under a rock to not to know a lot about this case. It was plastered all over the news for 3 years and everyone has HLN, FoxNews, etc on cable/satellite nowadays.
Click to expand...

I said least amount of bias as possible.

I personally didn't hear much about this case until shortly before the trial whereas I have friends who had been following it from the beginning.
 
ladylurker said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was my line of thinking also. It wouldn't take much to make this happen IMO.
 
I just posted this in another thread and it belongs here

Originally Posted by DIXIECAT
Apparently, the jurors were woefully devoid of critical thinking skills... I'm beginning to believe that "professional" jurors might be a good idea. JMHO

This has been a favorite argument of mine for a very long time. Our society has changed quite a bit since the Constitution was written and a "jury of one's peers" is just not reasonable or adequate in today's world.

Jury duty is the most essential portion of our legal system, yet we leave the end results of a criminal case in the hands of the inexperienced, the ignorant, the unwilling, the uneducated, the incapable...in other words, we rely upon the available.

I envision a professional juror, who is educated, principally on how to think critically, how to evaluate evidence or the lack thereof, how to apply the law and most importantly, how to really listen.

I envision a profession or occupation that is compensated fairly and respected for the importance of the job. A juror, after all, stands between a killer loose on the street and us.

I don't understand why we still allow a pack of people who bring nothing but their bodies to court, make decisions of overwhelming importance, which btw, cannot be altered. Even in the face of gross neglect, lack of comprehension and disobedience of court orders, a jury's verdict stands as rendered. That isn't justice.

I'm realistic in that I understand most do not agree with me. But I honestly believe that it's something that should be considered and discussed. Times change. It's time for a change in our legal system, imho.
 
Mysterious said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe this would be the beauty of having professional jurors - "I" do not think the State put on an excellent CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence case. I believe it was haphazard, confusing, and easily picked apart by the defense.

Now, if we had professional jurors, trained in all the ramifications for a period of months, we might be better off - MIGHT being the operative word. At least, when the pro jurors came up with an unpopular verdict, they wouldn't be threatened or barred from a chili joint.

My opinion only
 
PaulaF513 said:
This has been a favorite argument of mine for a very long time. Our society has changed quite a bit since the Constitution was written and a "jury of one's peers" is just not reasonable or adequate in today's world.

Jury duty is the most essential portion of our legal system, yet we leave the end results of a criminal case in the hands of the inexperienced, the ignorant, the unwilling, the uneducated, the incapable...in other words, we rely upon the available.
Click to expand...

How can a jury of one's peers not be reasonable? You are a peer. I am a peer. Each and every one of us is a reflection of our society and we are all peers. Are you suggesting that you don't trust any of your fellow human beings? Or only a select few? Our society is more civil and more educated today than it has been in the history of mankind. Do we really not have enough faith in our society to trust a jury of peers? If not, that is sad, and it's a reflection of ALL OF US, not just those whom you think are "unfit" to sit on a jury. Are we really going to have a list of criteria for people to sit on a jury? The jury is meant to reflect a society as a whole and not be made chosen based on a philosophy of elitism. MOO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 4,047 (members: 89, guests: 3,958)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
3,958
Total visitors
4,047
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,394
Messages
17,968,313
Members
228,766
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top