i have to run so i can't post as much as i'd like but

pros:
permanent job creation in the hundreds for every major city in NC
*******jurors who know what the law is

oh wait, that should pretty much seals the deal for me...the #1 bottleneck in complicated court cases is the jury. you win or lose the second the selection process is over and the law assumes that these people are reasonable and capable without a great deal of investigation into whether that's true or not.

make your arguments for/against professional jurors

5/5/2011 4:46:33 PM

Or add a law class or two to primary school curriculum.

Is trial by experts better than trial by peers?

5/5/2011 5:06:10 PM

Quote :

"Or add a law class or two to primary school curriculum."

Yes, because people understand history, and grammar, and algebra, and all of the things that they're "taught" in public school. It would take more than a class or two.

Quote :

"Is trial by experts better than trial by peers?"

Yeah, I think so. Some people treat real life like it's a reality show. They're not really impartial; they pick who they want to win early on and stick with it. A professional jury (and I think more likely they'd be referred to as a panel of judges, because that's essentially what it would be) has a career riding on their reputation. If a "jury of your peers" makes a mistake now, they aren't held accountable in any way.

5/5/2011 5:22:39 PM

the judge is still considered the expert in my vision of how this would work out. but it does raise the level of intelligence of the jury from "the common man", which is to say "next to nothing about the standards of evidence and the party's respective burdens" to knowledgeable and reasonable persons.

5/5/2011 5:31:07 PM

What about an actual jury of peers. If the defendant is a college educated male, the jury should be college educated males.

5/5/2011 5:36:25 PM

ready to promote an amendment to the Constitution?

5/5/2011 5:38:08 PM

Quote :

"What about an actual jury of peers. If the defendant is a college educated male, the jury should be college educated males."

horrible idea. under no circumstances should it be anything less than a set of 12 reasonable and knowledgeable persons regardless of background or characteristics. the fact that the parties get to pick and choose their jury pool means that statistical analysis plays more a role than these fundamental considerations. the prosecution wants dumb people it can easily persuade, the defense wants blind sympathizers. the constitution requires equal protection, an impartial jury, and a speedy and public trial. you won't find "jury of your peers" anywhere in the document.

5/5/2011 5:46:12 PM

Cons:

An entirely new group of bureaucrats whose entire livelihood is directly connected to the number of people the state arrests and puts on trial.

Further encouragement to the politicians to make the law as difficult and confusing as possible to ensure that the people are beholden to the "specialists" all of whom are licensed by the very people who create the laws in the first place.

5/5/2011 7:36:05 PM

i'm not sure what you mean with your first point. i don't think they would get paid per case they heard, just put them on salary. also you can't eliminate arrests but you could eliminate the entire jury selection process. more fair and speedier!

the law is already difficult and you're already beholden to licensed specialists. i'm not sure how this would make it more difficult so maybe you could explain a little more...

5/5/2011 7:56:06 PM

Quote :

"i don't think they would get paid per case they heard, just put them on salary."

Either way their livelihood is based on the state arresting putting people on trial. The whole purpose of a jury trial is to not have your guilt or innocence determined by government officials.

Quote :

"the law is already difficult and you're already beholden to licensed specialists. i'm not sure how this would make it more difficult so maybe you could explain a little more..."

If no one who deals with the law is ever a "non-initiate" then the law will become more and more obtuse.

5/5/2011 8:30:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm not someone to make unsubstantiated claims"

Oh really? Substantiate this claim.

Quote :

" They're not really impartial; they pick who they want to win early on and stick with it."

Oh. And you guys do know that trial by jury is an option to the defendant. They can always choose trial by judge.

5/5/2011 8:50:46 PM

Notice I said "some people." Take this exchange on Facebook regarding the Nancy Cooper trial:

Her: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9553909/ The justice system did good. i hope he rots in jail. horrible horrible man.

Me: I'm sorry, ------, but this is outright bullshit. I watched several hours of the actual trial and no physical evidence of any kind was presented. Nancy Cooper had a laundry list of affairs, documented in the trial, and any of those dudes could have been it. What a joke of a justice system we have. The judge should absolutely lose his job over this. I hope the appellate judge has more sense. This is disgusting in every way - please look into the details.

Her: I'm sorry luke thats your opinion I thought from day one he was guilty and clearly so did the jury, if his defense really wanted him found not guilty i guess they should have done a better job.

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

This is not uncommon thinking, man. People don't always think, they go with their gut. A lot of people in this country leading a life that resolves around watching reality television. That's why a jury of your peers is not necessarily fair.

Quote :

"Oh. And you guys do know that trial by jury is an option to the defendant. They can always choose trial by judge."

Did you watch any of the trial? I don't think the judge would have been better, though certainly having ten female jurors didn't pan out for BC.

Quote :

"Either way their livelihood is based on the state arresting putting people on trial. The whole purpose of a jury trial is to not have your guilt or innocence determined by government officials."

I agree with this, which is why we should have private juries, courts, police, investigators. Convictions become about quality rather than volume.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2011 9:04:01 PM

Quote :

"Take this exchange on Facebook regarding the Nancy Cooper trial:"

LOL! Are you really offering up Facebook as evidence to backup your claim?

You're using two people who were not involved in the case and who weren't even on the jury to make your case that the jury, all of them, had their minds made up from day one?

Did you miss where it said they deliberated for 3 days for a total of 10 hours over their decision? If all of them had their mind made up by day 1, then why did it take so long to make their decision?

Quote :

"A lot of people in this country leading a life that resolves around watching reality television. "

So you're telling me that watching reality TV is causing people to become disassociated from reality and that they use the court room to play out drama in real life? That's a huge fucking connection you seem to be trying to make with absolutely nothing to substantiate this.

Quote :

"Did you watch any of the trial? I don't think the judge would have been better, though certainly having ten female jurors didn't pan out for BC."

He still needs all 12 jurors to vote guilty. Even if it's 10 of the most biased bitches in the world, he still needs the 2 men to vote guilty. Not to mention in the jury selection process the both the prosecution and defense need to agree on the jurors...

Quote :

"That's why a jury of your peers is not necessarily fair."

That's what appeals are for and that's why we have trial by judge as an option...

Quote :

"I agree with this, which is why we should have private juries, courts, police, investigators. Convictions become about quality rather than volume."

You brought this same bullshit up in another threads and it was torn to bits.

I asked you a seriess of questions and brought up a series of points, all of which were ignored.

message_topic.aspx?topic=608246&page=3

Quote :

"But the competition isn't for justice and liberty, it's for keeping the insurer happy. Is it not? Your system, realistically, makes the system worse, as I've explained. They're not compelled to bring an offender to justice. They're compelled to keep the insurer happy. They're also compelled to have as many people insured as possible, as long as it is possible to make a profit off of them. So if an insurance companies finds out an offender committed an offense against their own insurer, what motivation do they have to arrest their own customer? Why not arrest someone who is uninsured? Who is going to protect the uninsured? And if an insured person from another insurer is found to have committed an offense, then you enter into a situation where two insurance companies can either fight each other, through a hired court, in which case, there are no rules or ethical guidelines for the court to follow, which means they can accept bribes and be easily persuaded. And then there is the whole situation of people who are uninsured. At least under the current system, there is some degree of protection, regardless of income. The police will investigate crimes against the murder of someone, at do their best to arrest the offender. Under your system, if you're not insured, then nothing is done, and a offender is left to kill again. Sorry, that is just stupid. Your system is not better, nor does it make things you think should be legal, legal. Marijuana can still be illegal. If you smoke it in the presence of someone who pays for protection from marijuana smoke, or even cigarette smoke, wouldn't their insurance company be compelled to arrest the guy? So what does your insurance do in that situation? I paid for protection. The offender pays for protection from another insurance company. The offender is guilty, but his insurance company is there to keep him out of jail. So what? They go to war over something stupid like this? They bribe each other. They go behind closed doors and reach an agreement. Sorry, your idea isn't feasible. It's not realistic."

And to add onto it, you brought up this point:

Quote :

" A professional jury (and I think more likely they'd be referred to as a panel of judges, because that's essentially what it would be) has a career riding on their reputation."

But then you go onto say:

Quote :

"I don't think the judge would have been better"

How are you going to sell anyone on the idea of a "professional" jury when you follow it up with a reason to go against it. The judge in question has his career riding on his reputation like any other judge and just like in your "professional" jury dream land. In fact, it's their reputation that allows them to move up in their career. Not to mention this judge can be held accountable for his decisions, in a bench trial or a trial by jury.

But here are you, telling me that a guy who is held accountable for his actions, who's reputation is important, would have done a bad job...

5/5/2011 9:43:06 PM

Yeah what we need is even more legal aristocracy rather than better legal education

5/6/2011 7:21:26 AM

its not a jury of your peers.

i wish people would stop saying this bullshit.

5/6/2011 8:35:27 AM

Quote :

"Yes, because people understand history, and grammar, and algebra, and all of the things that they're "taught" in public school. It would take more than a class or two."

A couple classes would help a lot. We need to teach common law in primary school.

5/6/2011 8:54:06 AM

Quote :

"Yeah what we need is even more legal aristocracy rather than better legal education"

5/6/2011 8:54:47 AM

Lawsuits should rest with experts, namely judges, and most already do.

However, when it comes to putting people in jail, I don't want people going away for the rest of their life unless the prosecution can convince a jury of my peers that is a good punishment for the crime.

Juries are not meant to serve as a good judge of truth, that is why courts have standards of evidence to filter out crap, and the experts (judge) handle that.

The purpose of a jury is to serve as a check on the law, namely the legislature and its lawyers, by allowing appeals to corruption (someone in the government has framed me, not always false), appeals to oppression (this non-crime has been criminalized for political ends, such as pornography) and appeals to emotion (I made a mistake but I don't deserve this punishment).

There are a whole host of laws still on the books that no cop would bother arresting you on because no jury would convict you. Such as the distribution or possession of pornography. However, if juries consisted of experts that knew the law and only the law, this would not be the case.

5/6/2011 9:57:11 AM

How about somewhere in between, where if you get called to jury duty you have to pass some sort of test to prove you aren't a total moron. If I'm ever on trial, I want people on the jury who understand the definition of terms like "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty". If you can't prove you are intelligent enough to understand basic legal principles and terms then you shouldn't be able to convict someone of a crime.

I think the real problem is in the selection process. Somehow that needs to be revised so the prosecution and/or defense don't get to cherry pick the jurors who they think will side with them. Instead citizens who have the best interest of fair application of the law are selected to serve.

I don't think a professional jury is the right move though. You are essentially creating a Supreme Court situation for every case, where you have 9 or so people who act more like judges than jurors, interpreting the law instead of ensuring it is "checked". I think it would just increase corruption and add even more costs to the already expensive legal process.

5/6/2011 11:01:51 AM

the thought of being judged by a jury of my peers scares the shit out of me

the average son of a bitch i run into in NC is pretty damn stupid

5/6/2011 12:31:56 PM

I hope these people are volunteers because the last thing we need is more people on the government payroll.

5/6/2011 12:54:26 PM

Quote :

"How about somewhere in between, where if you get called to jury duty you have to pass some sort of test to prove you aren't a total moron. If I'm ever on trial, I want people on the jury who understand the definition of terms like "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty". If you can't prove you are intelligent enough to understand basic legal principles and terms then you shouldn't be able to convict someone of a crime."

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but I imagine it would work out like poll taxes and be used to filter the juries on racial / political / social markers than on any real evidence of competence.

Quote :

"I think the real problem is in the selection process. Somehow that needs to be revised so the prosecution and/or defense don't get to cherry pick the jurors who they think will side with them. Instead citizens who have the best interest of fair application of the law are selected to serve."

But if both sides get to cherry pick, don't you pretty much wind up at a fair compromise?

5/6/2011 1:29:20 PM

Quote :

"the thought of being judged by a jury of my peers scares the shit out of me"

I think its funny that people in this thread are discussing either intelligence minimums or a measured degree of legal understanding in order to be a juror yet they still keep saying jury of peers.

L
O
L

5/6/2011 2:10:34 PM

When attempting to be a snarky pedant, one should probably make sure they aren't being stupid too. Yes, "jury of one's peers" does not appear in our constitution. However, our laws are based on English common law, under which a jury trial was by definition a trial by your peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

5/6/2011 2:32:32 PM

Quote :

"LOL! Are you really offering up Facebook as evidence to backup your claim? You're using two people who were not involved in the case and who weren't even on the jury to make your case that the jury, all of them, had their minds made up from day one? Did you miss where it said they deliberated for 3 days for a total of 10 hours over their decision? If all of them had their mind made up by day 1, then why did it take so long to make their decision?"

Yes, the Facebook log serves as empirical evidence, as my claim refers to "some people." This was an actual person that made these comments, and if you'll check out GOLO sometime, you'll find that many more of them exist. The jury actually rushed the defense along so they could announce their verdict, despite having no physical evidence of any kind.

Please post this shit in the "Missing Runner" thread and see what kind of responses you get.

Quote :

"So you're telling me that watching reality TV is causing people to become disassociated from reality and that they use the court room to play out drama in real life? That's a huge fucking connection you seem to be trying to make with absolutely nothing to substantiate this."

That wasn't exactly my point. The average American spends hours watching T.V., rather than bothering with intellectual pursuits or thinking critically.

Quote :

"He still needs all 12 jurors to vote guilty. Even if it's 10 of the most biased bitches in the world, he still needs the 2 men to vote guilty. Not to mention in the jury selection process the both the prosecution and defense need to agree on the jurors..."

Surely, you're familiar with the term "group think."

Quote :

"That's what appeals are for and that's why we have trial by judge as an option..."

As I stated previously, I don't know that the judge would have been much better. The guy is a clown.

Quote :

"You brought this same bullshit up in another threads and it was torn to bits. I asked you a seriess of questions and brought up a series of points, all of which were ignored. message_topic.aspx?topic=608246&page=3"

Don't delude yourself. I've got a full time job, and I'm not going to pick up another one that involves teaching a course on the theory of private justice, especially to a bunch of dudes that have no interest in learning anything about it. I addressed the point you brought up multiple times throughout the thread, but you failed to understand it.

In a justice system where competition is allowed to exist in all areas, it's not just about "keeping the insurer happy." The insurer isn't happy if it's constantly having to fight other insurers. Collaboration is always preferable to conflict in a private system where the the state does not have a monopoly on force. An insurer that habitually locks up marijuana smokers will find itself so mired in arbitration that the cost of incarcerating and caring for the prisoners will stop being worth it very early on. In a private system, the nature of justice is defensive - people buy insurance to protect themselves, not to control others. In a state controlled system, new laws are constantly created by the bureaucracy in order to keep the revenue flowing. That's exactly what we see in our current system, and that's the problem 1337 b4k4 cites.

Quote :

"How are you going to sell anyone on the idea of a "professional" jury when you follow it up with a reason to go against it. The judge in question has his career riding on his reputation like any other judge and just like in your "professional" jury dream land. In fact, it's their reputation that allows them to move up in their career. Not to mention this judge can be held accountable for his decisions, in a bench trial or a trial by jury."

In this case, the jury and the judge were awful. I think the judge should be fired and disbarred, and the jurors should feel a great deal of shame for what they've done.

Quote :

"A couple classes would help a lot. We need to teach common law in primary school."

Eh, I just don't buy it. Unless you can communicate to kids why they should care, they're not going to care. They won't see it as relevant until possibly later in life.

Quote :

"I hope these people are volunteers because the last thing we need is more people on the government payroll."

The jury selection process itself is quite lengthy and costly in itself. You could replace it with a professional juror system and eliminate a lot of wasted time and costs.

Quote :

"But if both sides get to cherry pick, don't you pretty much wind up at a fair compromise?"

Unfortunately, no, as is quite effectively demonstrated by the Nancy Cooper trial.

5/6/2011 4:39:59 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like a good idea in theory, but I imagine it would work out like poll taxes and be used to filter the juries on racial / political / social markers than on any real evidence of competence."

Even more simplistically, it would make it easier for people to get out of jury duty: just throw the quiz and then go about your day.

Quote :

"I don't think a professional jury is the right move though. You are essentially creating a Supreme Court situation for every case, where you have 9 or so people who act more like judges than jurors, interpreting the law instead of ensuring it is "checked"."

I agree. How is a "professional jury" any different from simply having a judge or a panel of judges rule on your case?

5/6/2011 5:16:46 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the Facebook log serves as empirical evidence, as my claim refers to "some people." This was an actual person that made these comments, and if you'll check out GOLO sometime, you'll find that many more of them exist."

Yet none of these people are the 12 people on the jury. You can bring all of the "evidence" you want. If it doesn't prove shit, you're just wasting your time. These people cannot speak on behalf of the jurors. This evidence is useless.

Quote :

"That wasn't exactly my point. The average American spends hours watching T.V., rather than bothering with intellectual pursuits or thinking critically."

And? Are you really trying to draw a correlation between TV watching and critical thinking? Who the fuck are you to determine what is an is not critical thinking or "intellectual pursuits?" Get off your fucking high horse. You're not better than anyone with your bat shit crazy ideas that's so far off in left field it's laughable.

Quote :

"Surely, you're familiar with the term "group think.""

And? Substantiate that this is what actually happened. You failed to prove that jurors already had their mind made up before the trial or before all of the evidence was presented. A third-person account of what happened without actually being involved in the process means nothing.

It's like watching a football game. You see the QB talk to the coach. The offense goes out and they run a play. It goes wrong and the ball is intercepted. Meanwhile you think "WHAT IS HE THINKING?" The play-by-play announcer attempts to explain the reasoning behind his decision. Do you take what the announcer says at fact, or do you just write it off as a plausible explanation that is nothing more than an opinion?

You're taking these third-person accounts and presenting them as fact. These people are unable to explain the attitudes and opinions of the jurors, especially on an individual basis. They are also unable to explain what happened between the jurors when they were deliberating.

Quote :

" I'm not going to pick up another one that involves teaching a course on the theory of private justice,"

Then get the fuck out and shut the fuck up. If you're going to come here and post pie in the sky theories and expect us all to look up your bullshit, you're wrong. If you're so damn sure you're right, PROVE IT! I'm not asking a lot.

Quote :

"I addressed the point you brought up multiple times throughout the thread, but you failed to understand it."

No. You did not. Do you want to replay the entire fucking thread again? You left many questions unanswered in that thread and you continue to cop out.

Quote :

"In this case, the jury and the judge were awful."

What prevents this from happening in a "professional jury?"

5/6/2011 7:51:26 PM

An interesting result from recent studies: you can sometimes double someones measured IQ by offering them money. With the money comes a sense of importance to the task and therefore concentration. Someone chatting on facebook is not imbued with the sense of importance and therefore concentration of someone sitting on a jury.

5/6/2011 11:36:54 PM

How many of the folks commenting in this thread have actually been on a jury or observed jury selection? (just curious)

5/6/2011 11:45:14 PM

I was on the jury of an eminent domain dispute with the state of North Carolina, a more technical case than most juries face, yet by the end of it everyone on the jury was an expert on this case if not eminent domain in general.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/7/2011 9:24:51 AM

elected jurors

5/7/2011 5:18:51 PM

the real question is are you more afraid of corrupt jurors or stupid jurors. With professional jurors I see it opening up the door to the former and currently they seem to be the latter. Even with all that said I would be in favor of professional jurors if the rules that governed them would be strict enough to minimize the corruption.

5/7/2011 7:16:12 PM

So it's a job where you get to sit in judgment of people?

SIGN ME UP!!!!

Sittin in judgment is like my number one pastime.

5/8/2011 12:57:12 PM

i wanna be a professional juror

5/8/2011 3:29:32 PM

how about we do away with lawyers and make laws simple enough that it doesn't take 20 years of studying to understand?

5/8/2011 5:27:02 PM

What about paying a living wage so that people aren't eliminated because they have to be able to provide for their family?

5/8/2011 6:19:07 PM

^ That is taken care of by making it illegal to permanently avoid jury duty, so even those desperate to feed their family MUST serve on a jury at some point regardless of the cost.

5/8/2011 10:52:33 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I think so. Some people treat real life like it's a reality show. They're not really impartial; they pick who they want to win early on and stick with it. A professional jury (and I think more likely they'd be referred to as a panel of judges, because that's essentially what it would be) has a career riding on their reputation. If a "jury of your peers" makes a mistake now, they aren't held accountable in any way."

Either you don't understand how this would resemble a tribunal as opposed to the court system that's existed at the cornerstone of Western Civilization, or you're a huge fan of Plato for some reason.

5/9/2011 4:20:50 PM

i'm a huge fan of Plato. i'm not sure i understand the intended insult...

5/10/2011 12:23:20 PM

It's not really an insult so much as meant to imply that I feel that it's dubious that we reorganize our justice system around the rule of "experts" as opposed to a jury of peers.

5/11/2011 1:51:41 PM

not peers.

Quote :

"However, our laws are based on English common law, under which a jury trial was by definition a trial by your peers."

there are a lot of deviations between our laws and other forms of English common law. just because it was based on a concept does not mean that the description is applicable in another situation.

In the US court system you only have to pass voir dire, and nothing else.

5/11/2011 3:02:08 PM

Quote :

" there are a lot of deviations between our laws and other forms of English common law. "

There are, but all of those deviations are either a) codified by law or b) codified by further precedent. Beyond that, common law was incorporated as it stood in all the new states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Reception_statutes_as_a_step_in_decolonization

Now, if you can find me any state, federal or common law which overrides the previously understood "jury of one's peers", then you would have a point.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 9:53 PM. Reason : hjk]

5/11/2011 9:52:28 PM