4 ms·
They aren't random. They get vetted by the lawyers for being dim and pliable. An actually random jury would be a vast improvement.
by WalterSear 11y ago
They aren't random. They get vetted by the lawyers for being dim and pliable. An actually random jury would be a vast improvement.
- baconner 11y agoI served on a jury for a murder case last year and think your characterization is not accurate (and only partially because I don't think I'm dim or plyant). Yes the prosecutors were clearly selecting for their own advantage but that doesn't necessarily mean dim or plyant. There's as much reason for one side to select for intelligence and skepticism as there is for the other to select for sheeplike qualities. During deliberation we did have a couple of folks who were imo way to casual hangemhigh types, but the majority were methodical and serious about getting it right and held the rest of us to a high standard. Juries are far from perfect, but the system has some merit.
- saryant 11y agoI just served on a jury for a criminal trial (a police officer tipped off a suspected pedophile about an investigation). The very first people to go were the idiots who couldn't string a sentence together. After that it was anyone who expressed the slightest anti-cop sentiment. The judge didn't even make the lawyers waste blackballs on them, she just summarily dismissed them for cause. The jury was two software engineers, a contractor, a pastor, some stay-at-home moms, a mechanic, a teacher and a geologist.
- ionised 11y agoThat's not enough though. Surely they should be vetted for having some knowledge in the field in which the alleged crime was committed? Some case of computer-based financial fraud for example and the jury should be made up of people with qualifications and experience in those fields.