Zimmerman/Martin Jury

[Scat]

What an antiquated joke trial by jury is. Europeans have it right. Have legal experts make legal decisions. Not 12 people they picked off the street.

Because legal experts would never have any interest is seeing a trial go one way or the other. The supreme court is made up of legal experts but they can't agree on hardly anything.

And saying that it is nothing more than 12 people picked off the street is disingenuous. There is a process where jury members are selected to try and weed out the riff raff.

That said, using a "jury of peers" is risky. If one were to go by the facts and using the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" to determine guilt there are probably thousands of decisions that should have gone a different route. People are people and let emotion get in the way clouding judgment.

 

[JimLes]

Because legal experts would never have any interest is seeing a trial go one way or the other. The supreme court is made up of legal experts but they can't agree on hardly anything.

And saying that it is nothing more than 12 people picked off the street is disingenuous. There is a process where jury members are selected to try and weed out the riff raff.

That said, using a "jury of peers" is risky. If one were to go by the facts and using the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" to determine guilt there are probably thousands of decisions that should have gone a different route. People are people and let emotion get in the way clouding judgment.

Whether or not legal experts are biased or not is beside the point. So are members of the public. You can have a selection process for judges too. As a matter of fact, they do that in Europe.

The issue is that legal experts are legal experts. Your peers are not. I suppose having a public jury fits with the long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows everything better than the experts these days, anyway.

 

[Gameface]

Whether or not legal experts are biased or not is beside the point. So are members of the public. You can have a selection process for judges too. As a matter of fact, they do that in Europe.

The issue is that legal experts are legal experts. Your peers are not. I suppose having a public jury fits with the long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows everything better than the experts these days, anyway.

What problems do you think the jury system causes? Have you ever participated in it? You do realize the judge gives the jurors a set of specific guidelines and the laws that are applicable in the case, right? It's not just a free for all with a bunch of yokels deciding if they like the plaintiff or the defendant better.

 

[JimLes]

What problems do you think the jury system causes? Have you ever participated in it? You do realize the judge gives the jurors a set of specific guidelines and the laws that are applicable in the case, right? It's not just a free for all with a bunch of yokels deciding if they like the plaintiff or the defendant better.

Yes, I've participated in it. The problem I have is that it's unnecessary. We have people who study and interpret laws for a living. Why introduce a middle-man, who then needs to be instructed by these very people who study and interpret laws for a living? Why can't we just let those people decide? They can't be trusted, but random members of public can?

Or let's turn it around? What's the benefit of being tried by a jury as opposed to a panel of judges?

 

[Qman]

Yes, I've participated in it. The problem I have is that it's unnecessary. We have people who study and interpret laws for a living. Why introduce a middle-man, who then needs to be instructed by these very people who study and interpret laws for a living? Why can't we just let those people decide? They can't be trusted, but random members of public can?

Or let's turn it around? What's the benefit of being tried by a jury as opposed to a panel of judges?

Checks and balances- a corrupt judge is bad now. It would be worse if juries weren't involved on certain cases.

 

[Qman]

He shot and killed an unarmed kid.

I don't see this ending well for Zimmerman, regardless of what happened.

You mean Zimmerman was a double-amputee? He was physically incapable of being a physical threat?

 

[Nate505]

What problems do you think the jury system causes? Have you ever participated in it? You do realize the judge gives the jurors a set of specific guidelines and the laws that are applicable in the case, right? It's not just a free for all with a bunch of yokels deciding if they like the plaintiff or the defendant better.

It can be (though not in quite those terms). Jury nullification is legal in this country. I believe it in it some cases, and it's why I would never bet sat on a jury.

 

[JimLes]

Checks and balances- a corrupt judge is bad now. It would be worse if juries weren't involved on certain cases.

Wouldn't it be easier to stop electing judges and making them political figures? Or having multiple judges look at a case? Aren't all those preferable to having amateurs look at the case?

 

[Gameface]

Wouldn't it be easier to stop electing judges and making them political figures? Or having multiple judges look at a case? Aren't all those preferable to having amateurs look at the case?

I think you're making a lot of good points and I've honestly never even really questioned the validity of the jury system.

But there's something about having to inform the regular folks what's going on and what the criteria is for guilt. Otherwise it becomes this mysterious world that none of us have access to and yet remain mortally subject to.

 

[Revolution 9]

It helps the Karma Police get their justice

 

[JimLes]

I think you're making a lot of good points and I've honestly never even really questioned the validity of the jury system.

But there's something about having to inform the regular folks what's going on and what the criteria is for guilt. Otherwise it becomes this mysterious world that none of us have access to and yet remain mortally subject to.

A lot of things work that way, though. I'm not familiar with the minutiae of tax law, either. I don't need to bed. That's why smart money is on hiring an accountant, especially if you're doing anything even slightly complicated(estates, small business, investment, etc.) or problematic. It'd be nice if more people knew the details of the tax code so politicians couldn't just make outlandish claims during campaigns, but the system works whether you and I are informed or not.

Same goes for the law in general. You can defend yourself in court, and some people do, but if it's anything serious, you best get a lawyer. The system also works whether you know anything about it or not. Again, it'd be great if people knew more about it, but it's not going to happen.

And I understand that originally, trial by jury had tremendous value. The promise of trial by jury in English common law meant that you could not only have some hope of getting a fair trial, but that you could conceivably win lawsuits where the plaintiff is someone much more powerful or wealthy than you. I just don't think it means a whole lot today. It just complicates things, such as in this Zimmerman case, because high-profile cases need to have such complicated juror selection. And it still doesn't produce a "better" trial than by judge. That's my issue with it. It's not really a bad system, it just offers little meaningful improvement over trial by judge.

 

[TroutBum]

Wouldn't it be easier to stop electing judges and making them political figures? Or having multiple judges look at a case? Aren't all those preferable to having amateurs look at the case?

Dude, you're the guy who would gladly let someone come into your house and steal your stuff, mount your wife, and destroy your interiors simply because you're a pacifist pushover. Your opinions in this matter -- hell, any matter -- are so invalid that even Christopher Reeves thinks you're retarded.