Professional Jurors

[JBean]

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.

We already have basic criteria in place to sit on a jury. Felons cannot sit on a jury nor can people under the age of 18. Are they peers of some of the accused?
I don't think that lawyers,judges and LE can sit on a jury now can they?
Jury lists are largely generated from voting lists. If one does not vote are they typically not asked to sit a jury? Is that reasonable?
Don't get me wrong, I do not support profesional jurors, but make no mistake there is currently a process in place for jury selection that is made up of basic eligibility issues.

 

[otto]

We already have basic criteria in place to sit on a jury. Felons cannot sit on a jury nor can people under the age of 18. Are they peers of some of the accused?
I don't think that lawyers,judges and LE can sit on a jury now can they?

Don't get me wrong, I do not support profesional jurors, but make no mistake there is currently a process in place for jury selection that is made up of basic eligibility issues.

Here, anyone associated with any element of the justice system cannot sit on a jury because of the potential for a conflict of interest. For example, spouses of prosecutors cannot sit on a jury.

After what happened in Ms Anthony's trial, I have been thinking that jurors should be required to attend a short workshop on the jury process, jury responsibilities, how to interpret Judge's instructions, different types of evidence and other facts of law such as: motive is not required, DNA links between body and suspect are not required, manner of death is not required and so on. I think this would go a long way towards separating the TV notion of crime scene investigation and reality.

 

[dani]

Who would flock to and dominate this profession? Wannabe prosecutors? Wannabe judges?
Wannabe enforcers? Unequivocally, NO, to professional juries.

I agree. Why bother with a jury trial then? Just have a judge decide your fate. (Of course, you then have the problem of the reputation of a judge, too lenient or a "hangin' judge".)

This particular jury apparently didn't understand "reasonable doubt" and completely lacked in common sense and reasoning ability.

I've wondered what would happen if a jury was allowed to ask questions of witnesses as the trial progressed, an interactive jury, if you will. It seems to me the attorneys are so hamstrung by the law as to how they ask a question that vital information is lost on the jury.

But&#8230;something has to change. As our population seems to be "dumbing down" with each new generation we can't have total <modsnip> deciding the fate of a person on trial. I'm starting to like my idea of using technology such as "Watson" (the computer that beat two of Jeopardy's top winners). No emotion involved. All the case precedent to refer to. Watson can sort out inconsistency in statements. Watson wouldn't be looking forward to his payday from the media and could care less about her bra size!

 

[gladiatorqueen]

We already have basic criteria in place to sit on a jury. Felons cannot sit on a jury nor can people under the age of 18. Are they peers of some of the accused?
I don't think that lawyers,judges and LE can sit on a jury now can they?

Don't get me wrong, I do not support profesional jurors, but make no mistake there is currently a process in place for jury selection that is made up of basic eligibility issues.

Yes, I do understand that, but those seem like fairly reasonable criteria to me, if you take a close look at them. Within the legal system lawyers, judges and LE are in positions of power and authority. People under the age of 18 can't vote. Felons, well, they can't vote either, execute an estate or get certain occupational licenses among other things, so why would they be allowed on juries. (I am not necessarily in agreement with any of these when it comes to nonviolent offenders who have done their time).

 

[JBean]

Here, anyone associated with any element of the justice system cannot sit on a jury because of the potential for a conflict of interest. For example, spouses of prosecutors cannot sit on a jury.

After what happened in Ms Anthony's trial, I have been thinking that jurors should be required to attend a short workshop on the jury process, jury responsibilities, how to interpret Judge's instructions, different types of evidence and other facts of law such as: motive is not required, DNA links between body and suspect are not required, manner of death is not required and so on. I think this would go a long way towards separating the TV notion of crime scene investigation and reality.

Interesting thought Otto. My knee jerk reaction is bearing the burden of cost for a "workshop" and if this would bog down and already backlogged system.

 

[BaileyandBella]

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. :tsktsk:


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

I agree with both things you said. I do think some changes need to be made.

Maybe they need to deliberate for a minimum amount of time??

 

[gladiatorqueen]

This particular jury apparently didn't understand "reasonable doubt" and completely lacked in common sense and reasoning ability.

As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no proof of this and believe that thus far, such conclusions are based entirely on speculation and not fact.

 

[JBean]

Yes, I do understand that, but those seem like fairly reasonable criteria to me, if you take a close look at them. Within the legal system lawyers, judges and LE are in positions of power and authority. People under the age of 18 can't vote. Felons, well, they can't vote either, execute an estate or get certain occupational licenses among other things, so why would they be allowed on juries. (I am not necessarily in agreement with any of these when it comes to nonviolent offenders who have done their time).

well therein lies the rub. what does each of us consider 'reasonable"

 

[gladiatorqueen]

well therein lies the rub. what does each of us consider 'reasonable"

Right. Like "reasonable doubt."

 

[whiteangora]

Instead of Professional Jurors, I would like to see:
Jurors must have one or 2 days of "jury class" (esp in death penalty cases)
Jurors must pass a comprehension evaluation.

 

[Rail_Tracer]

Here, anyone associated with any element of the justice system cannot sit on a jury because of the potential for a conflict of interest. For example, spouses of prosecutors cannot sit on a jury.

After what happened in Ms Anthony's trial, I have been thinking that jurors should be required to attend a short workshop on the jury process, jury responsibilities, how to interpret Judge's instructions, different types of evidence and other facts of law such as: motive is not required, DNA links between body and suspect are not required, manner of death is not required and so on. I think this would go a long way towards separating the TV notion of crime scene investigation and reality.

I like your idea about the workshop.

Perhaps an inexpensive solution would be a short videotaped message for jurors to watch after the selection process ends (but before the trial begins).

 

[Sustained]

Here, anyone associated with any element of the justice system cannot sit on a jury because of the potential for a conflict of interest. For example, spouses of prosecutors cannot sit on a jury.

After what happened in Ms Anthony's trial, I have been thinking that jurors should be required to attend a short workshop on the jury process, jury responsibilities, how to interpret Judge's instructions, different types of evidence and other facts of law such as: motive is not required, DNA links between body and suspect are not required, manner of death is not required and so on. I think this would go a long way towards separating the TV notion of crime scene investigation and reality.

Not a bad idea ... I have two friends, one of whom is an assistant state attorney (not in Florida) and one who is a defense attorney in Florida. Both of them believe that ICA would have been convicted by 9 out of 10 juries of at least aggravated manslaughter. They also both stated that the questions asked by Juror #3 indicated they did not know what was necessary in order to convict. Both were also amazed that Juror #3 mentioned the death penalty as a possible influence in her decision.

IMO, juror education before the trial would go a long way as a well as a standard reminder before deliberations start.

 

[whiteangora]

As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no proof of this and believe that thus far, such conclusions are based entirely on speculation and not fact.

They absolutely did not understand their instructions!
They were too busy discussing the penalty, that is strictly prohibited.
You can not discuss penalty before a guilty/not guilty decision is made.
And even then, you must wait for that phase of the trial and the judges
instructions for that phase. (penalty phase)

 

[PaulaF513]

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.

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "peer".

I haven't mentioned philosophy nor elitism and I don't have an innate distrust of society as a whole. I do however believe that the average person does not possess the ability to fully understand the complexity involved with many legal issues. Most of the time this matters little, but when sitting in judgement of another's actions in a criminal case, it matters greatly.

I believe there should be predetermined criteria before a person is seated on a jury. There needs to be at minimum, the ability to understand the significance of evidence. Probably more than that would be the ability to recognize what constitutes evidence. Evidence is not always DNA or fingerprints left at the scene.

It seems to me that most people in general really dislike jury service and try hard to escape it. Personally, I've served on a jury 3 times in civil cases and I always found it interesting.

I just think there's a better way and I think that being a juror is an awesome task that should be recognized as such. I think that it can easily rise to the level of a profession.

 

[goldenlover]

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:

I have a Bachelors Degree in Paralegal Administration. I am of above average intelligence. I worked as a paralegal in a large law firm for several years out of college and I am now in the pharmaceutical field. I can understand science if it is explained to me. I am a 49 year old female. I thought that ICA should be found guilty before the trial started as I have followed the story throught the media for the past 3 years.

I watched the trial every day, hardly missed any of it and as I began to watch it and especially after the prosecution rested its case, I felt that there was not enough evidence to establish a reasonable doubt, as shown in trial. I kept thinking, where is the evidence? I do think she had something to do with whatever happend to her daughter, but that is the problem, I" think" she did, but no one knows what happended, how it happened, where it happened or who really did it. You cannot base a verdict on that, especially when a persons life is at stake ( even life without parole, even 30 years in prison, etc.) How can you find someone guilty based soley on speculation? All of the states evidence was pure speculation, except the fact that she lied. The jury made the right decision with what the state presented, IMO. There was no other alternative.

Would you say I was not qualified to be on this jury? The jury should be a jury of your peers. This is a random sampling amongst the society you live in. I think the jury did what they were supposed to do. If they came back with a verdict based on their gut feelings and pure speculation, it would be pure ignorance. She was found not guilty, based upon the evidence or lack of brought out in the trial., Let her go on with her life, that is what our U.S. constitution is based on. There is no better system than our system of justice.

"Professional jurors" would bring to the table all sorts of predjudices from previous trials, etc. They would never be an unbiased jury. Having professional jurors would not give anyone a fair and impartial jury.

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

I don't think there should be professional jurors. but I do think there needs to be some changes to the way juries currently deliberate. Here are the changes I believe need to be made:

1. Jury training. After being selected to sit on the jury, jurors need to be educated on the system and the rules they will have to follow. Not just being told by the judge, because lots of that is legal mumbo jumbo and I can bet the jurors just tuned out to what HHJP was saying. But someone to teach them what reasonable doubt means, what circumstantial evidence means, that they should not consider penalty when deciding on guilt.

2. Jurors should have a minimum deliberation period. Maybe 1 day for each week the trial was in session. Or something so the jurors have to take the time and really review evidence and think about their decision, not just rush after 10 hours to get the heck home. Of course, they can take as long as they want, but there should be a minimum.

3. A neutral court appointed representative should be in the room while the jurors deliberate. Someone who can answer questions, step in if the jurors are not following the rules (like discussing punishment while deciding on guilt), someone who won't influence the jury but will make sure they are doing the civic duty thoroughly and correctly.

4. No criminal history. I know this is probably controversial, but someone with a criminal history is probably more likely to sympathize with another person who has a criminal history. Their experience with law enforcement and the legal system might prejudice them and cause them to want "revenge" or discredit them because the situation they dealt with.

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

I have a Bachelors Degree in Paralegal Administration. I am of above average intelligence. I worked as a paralegal in a large law firm for several years out of college and I am now in the pharmaceutical field. I can understand science if it is explained to me. I am a 49 year old female. I thought that ICA should be found guilty before the trial started as I have followed the story throught the media for the past 3 years.

I watched the trial every day, hardly missed any of it and as I began to watch it and especially after the prosecution rested its case, I felt that there was not enough evidence to establish a reasonable doubt, as shown in trial. I kept thinking, where is the evidence? I do think she had something to do with whatever happend to her daughter, but that is the problem, I" think" she did, but no one knows what happended, how it happened, where it happened or who really did it. You cannot base a verdict on that, especially when a persons life is at stake ( even life without parole, even 30 years in prison, etc.) How can you find someone guilty based soley on speculation? All of the states evidence was pure speculation, except the fact that she lied. The jury made the right decision with what the state presented, IMO. There was no other alternative.

Would you say I was not qualified to be on this jury? The jury should be a jury of your peers. This is a random sampling amongst the society you live in. I think the jury did what they were supposed to do. If they came back with a verdict based on their gut feelings and pure speculation, it would be pure ignorance. She was found not guilty, based upon the evidence or lack of brought out in the trial., Let her go on with her life, that is what our U.S. constitution is based on. There is no better system than our system of justice.

"Professional jurors" would bring to the table all sorts of predjudices from previous trials, etc. They would never be an unbiased jury. Having professional jurors would not give anyone a fair and impartial jury.

Respectfully, yes I would say that you are not qualified based on your statement that I bolded above, "You cannot base a verdict on that, especially when a persons life is at stake ( even life without parole, even 30 years in prison, etc.)"

Punishment is NOT supposed to even be a consideration when determining guilt. The possible sentences should have no weight or influence when deciding guilty or not guilty.

Also, circumstantial evidence is not speculation.

 

[Padua]

I don't think there should be professional jurors. but I do think there needs to be some changes to the way juries currently deliberate. Here are the changes I believe need to be made:

1. Jury training. After being selected to sit on the jury, jurors need to be educated on the system and the rules they will have to follow. Not just being told by the judge, because lots of that is legal mumbo jumbo and I can bet the jurors just tuned out to what HHJP was saying. But someone to teach them what reasonable doubt means, what circumstantial evidence means, that they should not consider penalty when deciding on guilt.

2. Jurors should have a minimum deliberation period. Maybe 1 day for each week the trial was in session. Or something so the jurors have to take the time and really review evidence and think about their decision, not just rush after 10 hours to get the heck home. Of course, they can take as long as they want, but there should be a minimum.

3. A neutral court appointed representative should be in the room while the jurors deliberate. Someone who can answer questions, step in if the jurors are not following the rules (like discussing punishment while deciding on guilt), someone who won't influence the jury but will make sure they are doing the civic duty thoroughly and correctly.

4. No criminal history. I know this is probably controversial, but someone with a criminal history is probably more likely to sympathize with another person who has a criminal history. Their experience with law enforcement and the legal system might prejudice them and cause them to want "revenge" or discredit them because the situation they dealt with.

I agree with all of your points.

As far as professional jurors; I thought the whole process of summonsing (SP?) jurors for jury duty is that it is a random sample of the population. If you start picking and choosing jurors it is no longer random.

 

[goldenlover]

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "peer".

I haven't mentioned philosophy nor elitism and I don't have an innate distrust of society as a whole. I do however believe that the average person does not possess the ability to fully understand the complexity involved with many legal issues. Most of the time this matters little, but when sitting in judgement of another's actions in a criminal case, it matters greatly.

I believe there should be predetermined criteria before a person is seated on a jury. There needs to be at minimum, the ability to understand the significance of evidence. Probably more than that would be the ability to recognize what constitutes evidence. Evidence is not always DNA or fingerprints left at the scene.

It seems to me that most people in general really dislike jury service and try hard to escape it. Personally, I've served on a jury 3 times in civil cases and I always found it interesting.

I just think there's a better way and I think that being a juror is an awesome task that should be recognized as such. I think that it can easily rise to the level of a profession.

Are you saying these jurors did not understand the significance of evidence? I respectfully disagree. I think they were able to understand, which takes a much higher intelligence, that much of the evidence was insignificant.

 

[chakti]

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.

This is just what I was thinking. Very good idea. Thank You !