Trial By Jury - The Most Idiotic thing in the Constitution

[Duckwater 0]

I think the OJ trial, and now the Peterson trial, are demonstrating the inherent flaws in our judicial system.

Trial by Jury is idiotic. To think that you can pull 12 people off the street randomly and expect them all to be able to rationally and logically decipher guilt or innocence from the (biased) opinions of the prosecution or the defense is illogical.

Random people off the street, categorically, are not intelligent or educated enough to decide someone's fate with all the science involved in trials nowadays.

I propose we write a Constitutional Amendment to revamp out judicial system into something similar to a military court martial. We would have a panel of 7 elected Judges that would decide the fate of all defendants.

These Judges would be educated on all forms of evidence and would hopefully not be influenced by Showboating Attorneys or the Media.

Think of how much money states would save and how much faster trials would proceed without educating the ignorant public every time on legalities and wasting time allowing showboating attorneys to strut their stuff in front of a easily entertained Jury.

Why do we hold a Constitution written 200 years ago so dear? Corproate America has shown that a Business Plan written 20 years ago is flawed. I think the Constitution is in dire need of updates.

Mike

---

[pajarito 0]

Surely you're not serious...

[TomAiello 25]

When the Constitution was written, trial by jury had a very different implementation.

Jury trial was the alternative to magisterial trial. Meaning that your option (aside from the jury) was to submit yourself to the King's justice. Obviously, the recently revolutionary drafters didn't think too highly of this idea.

Originally, juries were meant to be well informed groups. There was none of the modern "don't tell the jury anything" going on. Juries even went out and did their own fact finding in the midst of trials.

Don't blame the constitution--blame our modern implementation.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Duckwater 0]

Iam VERY serious. OJ Jurors were quoted as saying "lot's of people have the same blood type" when asked how they overlooked the DNA evidence. Trials are too complicated for the average Joe.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Surely you're not serious...

Err... Why not?

"Trial by Jury of Your Peers" dates back to the days of small villages and poor transportation. The "Jury" was made up of people who KNEW you (and I doubt that many of the verdicts had much to do with the evidence). Today, the "Jury" consists of people who are eitther too stupid to get out of Jury Service, or people who are motivated by their sense of civic duty. Either way, "experts" are NOT WANTED. It seems that the whole system is geared to making sure the jury are the most stupid people in the court! They frequently can't tell the difference between evidence and "showboating" by the prosecution or the defence.

Would YOU trust your future to a group of people specially selected for their lack of knowledge? Me neither.

So yeah... Tribunal (or septunal) of judges does make a lot more sense than a jury. People who KNOW the rules of evidence, and have the mental discipline to assess the evidence and disregard the histrionics.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Jimbo 0]

Trial by jury isn't required, you can appear before the court without a jury. Most people, however, choose to bank on the jury. It's their choice.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Trial by jury isn't required, you can appear before the court without a jury. Most people, however, choose to bank on the jury. It's their choice.

I was just about to make that point, Jimbo.

Lots of cases are heard by "the bench." There're options you (the defendent) get to choose between...

I sat on a jury once, and hung it (in favor of the defendent). I sat on another one, and we convicted. The system works...it's just sometimes thwarted by theatrics and hystrionics when the media is present, and when it's a high-profile case. And yes, I understand DNA evidence (not as a clinician, but I can listen and get it...)...even though I'd just be one of those "men off the street" (all right, I'm a lady, but still...).

Ciels-
Michele

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Think of how much money states would save and how much faster trials would proceed without educating the ignorant public every time on legalities and wasting time allowing showboating attorneys to strut their stuff in front of a easily entertained Jury.

Some points:

1) Juries are not educated on legalities. The jury's job is to decide the facts. I.e., "Did defendant run a red light" and "did plaintiff suffer whiplash" and "how much is plaintiff's whiplash worth."

Jury instructions give instructions, and then the final verdict. Here's a sample, California Jury Instruction

Quote

16.73 - Form of Special Verdict
"FORM OF SPECIAL VERDICT--COMPARATIVE IMPLIED INDEMNITY-- MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS -- CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AN ISSUE
(Title of Court and Cause)

SPECIAL VERDICT

We, the jury in the above entitled action, find the following special verdict on the following questions submitted to us:

Question No. 1: [Was] [Were any of] the defendants negligent?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" after the name of [each] defendant.

Yes No

Answer: Defendant __________________ ______ ______

[Defendant _________________ ______ ______

[Defendant _________________ ______ ______

If you answer "no" [as to all defendants,] sign and return this verdict. If you answer Question No. 1 "yes" [as to one or more defendants], then answer Question No. 2 [only as to such defendants].

Question No. 2: [As to each defendant that you answered "yes" in Question No. 1,] was the negligence of defendant a cause of injury to the plaintiff?

Write "yes" or "no" after the name of such defendant.

Yes No

Answer: Defendant __________________ ______ ______

[Defendant _________________ ______ ______

[Defendant _________________ ______ ______

If you answer Question No. 2 "no", [as to all defendants], sign and return this verdict. If you answer "yes" [as to one or more defendants] to Question No. 2, then answer Question No. 3.

Question No. 3: Was the plaintiff negligent?

Answer "yes" or "no".

Answer: __________

If you answer Question No. 3 "no", then answer Question No. 5. If you answer Question No. 3 "yes", then answer Question No. 4.

Question No. 4: Did the negligence of the plaintiff contribute as a cause to plaintiff's injury?

Answer "yes" or "no".

Answer: ___________

Answer Question No. 5.

Question No. 5: Without taking into consideration the reduction of damages due to the negligence of the plaintiff, if any, what do you find to be the total amount of damages, including economic and non-economic damages, if any, suffered by the plaintiff and caused by the accident involved herein?

Answer: (a) Economic Damages $__________

(b) Non-Economic Damages $__________

TOTAL $__________

If you answer Question No. 5 by stating that plaintiff suffered "no damage", sign and return this verdict. If you answer "yes" [as to one or more defendants] to Question No. 2 and answer "yes" to Question No. 4, then answer Question No. 6. However, if you answer "no" to either Question No. 3 or Question No. 4, then do not answer Question No. 6 but answer Question No. 7.

Question No. 6: Assuming the combined negligence [and fault] [and wrongful conduct] of the plaintiff and of the defendant [or defendants] [and of other persons] whose [negligence] [and] [fault] [and] [wrongful conduct] contributed to the plaintiff's injury to be 100%, what percentage of such combined [negligence] [and] [fault] [and] [wrongful conduct] is attributable to the plaintiff and what percentage is attributable to [each] defendant [and such other persons] whose [negligence] [and] [fault] [and] [wrongful conduct] was a cause of the plaintiff's injury?

Answer: To plaintiff ______________ __________%

[To plaintiff ______________ __________%]

To defendant ______________ __________%

[To defendant ______________ __________%

[Other person ______________ __________%

(Identify)

[Other person ______________ __________%

(Identify)

TOTAL __________%

If you answer Question No. 5 by stating that plaintiff suffered "no damage", sign and return this

If you answer Question No. 6, do not answer Question No. 7 but sign and return this verdict.

Question No. 7: Assuming the combined negligence [and fault] [and wrongful conduct] of the defendants [and of other persons] whose [negligence] [and] [fault] [and] [wrongful conduct] contributed to the plaintiff's injury to be 100%, what percentage of such combined [negligence] [and] [fault] [and] [wrongful conduct] is attributable to each defendant [and such other persons] whose [negligence] [and] [fault] [and] [wrongful conduct] was a cause of the plaintiff's injury?

Answer: To defendant ______________ __________%

[To defendant ______________ __________%]

[To defendant ______________ __________%]

[To other persons __________ __________%]

TOTAL __________%

Dated: _______________

____________________ Foreperson | TOP |

There are dozens of other instructions about how to find it, but this form is the jury job in a nutshell.

Point 2: Judges also need to be educated

People don't realize that if judges were not factfinders, there would be no trials, with evidence and other things put on. Easily entertained jury? I've never seen a trial where the judge did not yawn. Some sleep. I shit you not. Let's have that person come to a finding of fact.

And if people don't think judges can get inflamed by evidence and hate a party or attorney, you are mistaken. Who here thinks that a party or attorney cannot disqualify a judge by peremtory challenge, same as a juror? IF you think this to be the case, you are wrong.

Finally, attorneys and parties educate a judge on the law. That's why attorneys do briefs. Attorneys don't know all laws. That's why they research. Then they educate the judge to make a decision. Then the judge educates the jury (or him/herself) on the law.

I like the "elected judges" part. Let's make juries politicized.

Quote

Why do we hold a Constitution written 200 years ago so dear?

Calculus has been around longer. Sure, it's been changed and refined througout these years, but the basic system works pretty well as long as it's followed.

Laws written 20 years ao may be flawed. Good thing we have a Constitution to help us get rid of them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[78RATS 0]

The two trials you cite have a common problem.....CALIFORNIA. That state has some seriously fucked up trials.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[slug 1]

Quote

Surely you're not serious...

Hi Paj

Bill von and the security guards was funny he even provided his source.

Your in SC, plus on the internet you can be whoever you want to be. You don't know me I don't know you we don't know duckwater.

If he's joking or serious whats the difference either way it's funny
I'don't think you can change anyones mind here just agree or . I do a lot of and once in a while poke the mad dogs with a stick and then leave
Some people get pissed off and hate SC. Wrong attitude

R.I.P.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

You might be onto something.

I haven't spent the time considering the pros and cons of it, though, and don't want to jerk a knee in support of it until discussion has taken place regarding what could be wrong with this plan.

Suffice it to say I agree with what you said about the typical person being too fucking dumb for me to be willing to put faith in his verdict. We are talking about people who could very well listen to hip-hop, watch American Idol, follow the Atkins diet blindly, or read Danielle Steele novels.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

People who KNOW the rules of evidence, and have the mental discipline to assess the evidence and disregard the histrionics.

BINGO!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I sat on a jury once, and hung it (in favor of the defendent). I sat on another one, and we convicted. The system works...it's just sometimes thwarted by theatrics and hystrionics when the media is present, and when it's a high-profile case. And yes, I understand DNA evidence (not as a clinician, but I can listen and get it...)...even though I'd just be one of those "men off the street" (all right, I'm a lady, but still...).

Michele, you can judge me anytime! RrrrOWrrrr!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think the OJ trial, and now the Peterson trial, are demonstrating the inherent flaws in our judicial system.

That flaw would be "presumption of innocence." For all the incredibly damning circumstantial evidence, no one saw him do it. It's hard to explain away short stops at the Berkeley Marina hours away from home, but it's not hard to skip on the adultery and the fleeing bit. It's also a bit early to draw any conclusion as the jury hasn't deadlocked yet.

Re OJ - the LA DA's office has a pretty bad record on high profile cases. The McMartins, the Menendez brothers, and OJ. I don't think they ever win.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I think the OJ trial, and now the Peterson trial, are demonstrating the inherent flaws in our judicial system.

Trial by Jury is idiotic. To think that you can pull 12 people off the street randomly and expect them all to be able to rationally and logically decipher guilt or innocence from the (biased) opinions of the prosecution or the defense is illogical.

So, am I correct to conclude that you believe what you hear about these cases on the news and in the media is a much more accurate way to judge someone's innocence or guilt than a jury trial?

[Michele 1]

Quote

Michele, you can judge me anytime! RrrrOWrrrr!

LOL, Peej...bring it on! LOLOLOL!!!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The two trials you cite have a common problem.....CALIFORNIA. That state has some seriously fucked up trials.

Some of them, but the seriously fucked up trials actually are more common in the Gulf states. Alabama, Arky, Mississippi and eastern Texas from the Coast and inland rural areas. Plaintiff lawyers affectionately refer to it as "The Jackpot Belt."

An Alabama Jury awarded 581 million dollars to a family for being overcharged $1,200 for two satellite dishes. An Alabama jury awarded 50 million dollars for the infamous BMW paint job, that the US SUpreme Court overturned. Lawyers seek class actions and large suits in these areas because of the history of large verdicts. Much if this is due to the poverty-pimped "disenfranchisement" of these people, who typically blame large corporations for business.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People who KNOW the rules of evidence, and have the mental discipline to assess the evidence and disregard the histrionics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BINGO!

Juries have no business knowing the rules of evidence any more than my secretary should know the rules of evidence. A jury should not be deciding what it should hear and not hear. A jury has no business deciding what it should and should not consider.

Here's the scenario you outline - "Police break in on a warrantless search of a residence due to a tip from an unnamed informant. The tip is that he has a large cash of weapons and explosives, and is planning on bombing a downtown highrise. Police find no evidence of this, but in a search of his backyard they find two marijuana plants, and charge him with cultivation and possession with intent to distribute. The prosecutors plan to tell the jury that he is a registered sex offender and has also served time for cruelty to animals."

Now, let's let the jury decide what it should hear and shouldn't hear. Under the rules of evidence, none of the above should be heard by a jury, since none of if it relevant to the drug charge (note the "fruit of the poisoned tree argument, as well.)

But, put this guy before a jury, even if they are educated in the rules of evidence, and they'll know he's a despicable human being and they'll convict him of something.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamsville 0]

I agree with you on the runaway nature of some awards and the way trials seem to go, and of course I'm not a lawyer.

In spite of this, it looks as though the authors of the Constitution were influenced by their origins. They had an inate fear of despotism by the state. That's why we ended up with trial by jury, right to bear arms, and separation of church and state, to name a few. Many of these people were devout, but they feared the power of the church WITHIN the state. The framers of the Constitution knew guns kill, but they allowed possession anyway. They knew all jurors aren't smart, but here we have trial by jury.

It's always been up to us to see how to make all this work. Before you rework the Constitution, make sure you are prepared for changes others may propose at a Consitutional convention, some of which we may not like AT ALL.
|

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[tigra 0]

You're using two very bad examples to prove your point. In the OJ case, the police badly mishandled evidence, effectively rendering all the DNA tests useless in court. The police blunders created lots of "reasonable doubt" and the jury had little choice but to aquit under those circumstances. Blame the police, not the system, not the high priced dream team of defense attorneys, and certainly not the jury!

And with the Peterson case, there is very little hard evidence. The prosecution is relying heavily on motive, opportunity and circumstantial evidence for a conviction. Its no wonder the jury is having a problem.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Blame the police, not the system, not the high priced dream team of defense attorneys, and certainly not the jury!

Hey, you gotta blame the prosecution, too. How can the prosecution NOT be able to explain DNA evidence? I tested out whether DNA evidence was that hard to explain. My 4 year old brother understood it when I explained it.

The prosecution's failures also include things like giving OJ the glove. The defense team played a nice race-card strategy, as well, and so much of the evidence against OJ, i.e., beating Nicole, was not seen by the jury due to evidentiary relevance.

Hey, when up against Loyola Law School attorneys, look out. We'll kick your butts!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Blame the police, not the system, not the high priced dream team of defense attorneys, and certainly not the jury!

Hey, you gotta blame the prosecution, too. How can the prosecution NOT be able to explain DNA evidence? I tested out whether DNA evidence was that hard to explain. My 4 year old brother understood it when I explained it.

The prosecution's failures also include things like giving OJ the glove. The defense team played a nice race-card strategy, as well, and so much of the evidence against OJ, i.e., beating Nicole, was not seen by the jury due to evidentiary relevance.

Hey, when up against Loyola Law School attorneys, look out. We'll kick your butts!

Law Rocket

Quickie question

What % of case are plea bargained Vs go thru a jury trial.

BTW I'm a new daddy

R.I.P.

[lawrocket 3]

On the civil side, I'd estimate roughly 95-98 percent of all cases are settled prior to a verdict being reached. In fact, these cases often settle during trial, or even while the jury is deliberating.

Some cases go to trial more often, like unlawful detainer cases (where trials are short). I'd venture to say that at least 90-95 percent of criminal cases are pled out.

Congrats on being a daddy! My son turned 3 months old yesterday, and I took him for his second round of shots. They sure are fun, though!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tigra 0]

Of course the prosecution could have done a better job, but the police botched the investigation from the start. They knew immediately it was a high profile case, they knew who the primary suspect was and they should have known to make sure all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed. Instead, they were sloppy. It was a while ago and I'm no legal expert but what I remember hearing is that the crime scene was compromised before evidence was collected and I also recall hearing about evidence like blood samples being left overnight unguarded in a police officer's personal vehicle. Just plain dumb!

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

It's always been up to us to see how to make all this work. Before you rework the Constitution, make sure you are prepared for changes others may propose at a Consitutional convention, some of which we may not like AT ALL.
|

Very well said Harry!

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[slug 1]

>>Congrats on being a daddy! My son turned 3 months old yesterday, and I took him for his second round of shots. They sure are fun, though!