Trial by jury

[catskillz]

Hi,

Trial by jury,

- Do u think this is a good way to judge guilt in general, and why?
- Do u think this can be maintained in this new age of information and media, and why?

I've been asking myself thes questions for a while, and it was re-fueled by the peterson trial, watching various live trials through CTV, and the general changes in society and the way criminal cases are handled and covered (media, publicity, information).

As far as my thoughts:

At the moment i would prefer a judge over a jury:

My arguments:

- Judges/courts are trained, experienced and skilled: they have learned to 'see through' emotional arguments and can be much more objective

- Judges/courts are familiar with defense and prosecution tactics, and are generally less influenced (it's quite scary to see how some procecutors/defense attorneys play out their case for a jury, i find it often very intimidating! i'm not sure even a rational person with a decent set of brains would not be influenced by this, it seems as important as the actuel facts presented). We can't make sure only rational and unbiased people will be chosen as jurors (i bet there will be tons of people in line for selection to be able to convict for ex. s. peterson).

- With the growing media attention in high profile cases, it's almost impossible to find an impartial jury (a selection talk of written question based forms are hardly a guarantee, i bet there are people who would fill in the 'correct' answers to end up on a jury like scotts..) (if u dont think these people exsist , take a look at (for ex.) the ctv forums).

- In alot of countries (can't tell for all of US), crime rates lower when at the same time 'fear' is rising. Media attention and political agenda's are more powerful than whats really happening. (the fact that there are people in villages in the middle of nowhere in the US buying gasmasks in case of a terrorist attack ) The ACTUAL chance of one being killed in such an attack will likely be 1000 times smaller than u winning the mega mega US jackpot! Sure the politicians know all this, they just need the issues to collect votes (sure looks like there is a whole lot of (self created) problems solved! economy, social probs? hmm.. too busy with public safety! ;D ) Im drifting from the point.. which is that fear has and never will be a good advisor, yet this is mainly the reason for the public demanding higher and more sentences etc. This is influencing {some of -} the public, jurors and therefor the cases.

In the end, i think a true objective and rational evaluation of the evidence and facts must be conducted by true objective and rational people. I think this never did work flawlessly (another fairytail in a perfect world), and with the points mentioned i think it will likely not change for the better in the future. The people that are 'tough on crime' will likely disagree with me, as they really don't have any interest in juries becoming less objective.

Therfor i'm in favour of a trial by court & multiple judges.

Tell me what u think.

Best, catz

[mikebook]

I would prefer a jury. Most defense lawyers want middle class white female housewives over the age fo 50 because you couldreason with them. Taking a chance with a judge can be ahuge mistake.

[catskillz]

mikebook said:

I would prefer a jury. Most defense lawyers want middle class white female housewives over the age fo 50 because you couldreason with them. Taking a chance with a judge can be ahuge mistake.

I cannot talk for the judges in the US. Here there is a team of judges that determines the sentence, and this works very well in practice. Concerning the Law that is, they often must let people go due to all kind of judicial rules, even when there is no doubt about actual guilt or actual criminal facts. I can't count the number of defeats the state prosecutors have suffered last year. I dont always agree, but it is good to know our system works pretty good, it is the laws that sometimes need improvement.

Best, catz

[CCADP]

The problem is in the US you can be a judge without having been a lawyer I believe; and also a judge is an elected position so he is also worried about answering to the public in practice.

But if that was not the case; I think Catz has some points - its hard for us north americans to thnk that way because we have what they call and adversarial legal system. I am just learning about for example the french way; instead of a defense and prosecutor being on opposite sides; doing anything ethical or not; to make points for their team; they work together to find the truth and come to a conclusion fair to all parties.

i think there is something to be said for people who would not be shocked or swayed by lawyers storytelling and histrionics.

its a difficult question. i wouldn't abolish the jury system; but you might be right - the way you describe might end up being more truly fair and impartial in practise...

[mikebook]

Judges are usually lawyers, with some years of experience. Often, lawyers get interested in politics and run for office to bea judge. They are elected but may also be appointed. Again, I would rather have a trial with a judge and jury. It is not perfect, but it is the fairest we have been able to invent yet. In France, due to the influx of American tv, criminals are asking for Miranda rights....and warrents.

[CCADP]

Judges ARE USUALLY lawyers....

they USUALLY are

I don't understand why they would EVER have a judge who wasn't.

[mikebook]

Somebody runs for office...and gets elected...

[Maggie]

The problem with jurors is that they don't take the job serious enough to follow the law.

BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT is not a concept I think they take very seriously.

I posted the whole article on the Scott Peterson thread in the specific case section.... but I want to repost some of it here- because I agree with Carl Worden:

That's the kind of citizens and jurors we've got to choose from nowadays: They are completely immoral, irrational, angry and vicious and just want to see someone most likely to have done it, killed. Scott Peterson's guilt doesn't need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; close is good enough, and the problem with that attitude is what constitutes real evidence of a person's guilt in their tiny little minds. That alone should scare the bejeebers out of 54% of you! You don't ever want to be in the same shoes as those 114 innocent men that these jurors flippantly condemned to death. These jurors are a people devoid of wisdom and of principle and they are extremely dangerous sitting in judgment of others to the extent of being criminally negligent.



So what's the difference between a drunk driver, who accidentally kills someone, and an irresponsible juror who condemns a person to death on insufficient evidence? Answer: The drunk driver has an excuse!



These people who are so eager to condemn others to death on such flimsy evidence truly regard themselves as stand-up citizens for law and order, while having all the moral fortitude of the average lynch mob. It would be different if we had just one eyewitness who actually saw Scott Peterson dump Laci's body -- or something that looked like it -- off his boat in San Francisco Bay. It would be helpful if neighbors saw Scott Peterson haul something heavy into his boat or truck that morning. If there was enough blood evidence in volume in the Peterson home to indicate Laci died there, and didn't just bleed a little from cutting her hand in the kitchen, that would constitute real evidence in the mind of a responsible juror. Had the cops found Laci's body using the sonar search they conducted in the area around the Berkeley Marina soon after her disappearance, they might have been able to determine cause of death and develop other physical evidence, but after four months in the water, there's not much left to glean evidence from. The evidence we need to see is the cement blocks on the floor of the bay that were allegedly molded at the Peterson home and allegedly used to weigh the body of Laci Peterson down. If the recovered cement blocks in the bay could be solidly tied to the cement poured at the Peterson home, then that would probably be enough for me. If part of Laci's body were still attached, I'd push the button on Scott Peterson right then and there, and without looking back. Another killer could have dumped Laci's body in the same area after reading about where Scott was the day she disappeared, but only Scott would have used concrete blocks molded at his home to weigh her body down.



The problem is that no such witnesses or evidence in the aforementioned paragraph currently exist.



So what do these potential jurors regard as convincing evidence of Scott Peterson's guilt in the murder of his wife? Why, that man sold her car! He changed his appearance! He had $10,000.00 on him when arrested! He had an affair! He had $250,000.00 in life insurance on Laci! Oh, and my all time favorite: He didn't act right -- at least not according to the standards of these potential jurors! I'm telling you, people like these should never be allowed to sit on a jury in a shoplifting case, let alone a capital murder trial. These are some of the scariest and most dangerous people in America, because they can sit back and flippantly pass judgment destroying an innocent person's life, then go home acting normally, just like your average sociopath serial killer.



Fifty bucks says these jackass jurors wouldn't be quite so loose with other people's lives if they faced execution themselves following exoneration of a person they wrongly convicted and recommended for death. Do ya think?? I'll bet that would give them an attitude adjustment, how about you? Do you think they’d be a little more demanding of rock-solid evidence then?


It is because we have potential jurors like these, free and walking the streets, that we have 114 innocent men freed from death row -- and counting. They would have never been on death row in the first place, were it not for those fine citizens who make up that 46%.



Carl F. Worden

[catskillz]

That is why i'm againt the jury system. There can be evidence and one can walk free, there can be no evidence and the person can end up on DR.

When there are no legal requirements such as DNA, eye witnesses, physical evidence needed to convict someone of capital murder, these situations will continue to take place. Reasonable doubt is subjective, and as long as jurors won't admit to intentionally have manipulated the sentence, it will be a 'valid' verdict.

So, i agree with alot of the points argued in the article, but i also think one should be careful about being too judging towards all jurors, eventually one can't back up the fact that their conclusion of reasonable doubt would have not been sincere. The jurors don't conclude our reasonable doubt, they conclude their own reasonable doubt.

If u ask 10 'morons' to go on a jury, in their honesty and to their best intellectual capabilities convict an innocent man in a circumstantial case, who is to blame? I don't think the morons, i think it is the system that should prevent this happen in the first place.

Best catz