5 ms·

A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Is it? How about professional jurors. Would that be an improvement? Or a mix of the two; some peers, some pro

A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Is it? How about professional jurors. Would that be an improvement? Or a mix of the two; some peers, some professionals. Or what about short-engagement professional jurors - selected from the citizenry at large, but then given some proper training and acting as jurors for a year. Or perhaps a cadre of professionally trained jurors who take a few months to become trained, and then simply do jury duty alongside their untrained colleagues. Is a simple jury of peers really the best we can do?

kevingadd 7y ago
What specifically makes "professional jurors" better, though? I won't say the idea isn't appealing, but what about making them professionals makes them better than our peers? There are already a bunch of heavily regulated professionals involved in the process so it's kind of arbitrary to claim that we need to regulate more of it. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too?
- EliRivers 7y ago
  There are many ways for juries to just get things wrong, to misunderstand their role, to misunderstand the law, and so on. Sometimes these errors get recognised and corrected, at a cost; sometimes they just plain don't. Some jurors simply don't know how to pay attention and keep track for extended periods of time. Some education and training in advance could create massively more competent juries. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too? Because we don't have a time machine to place professional witnesses where they need to be in order to witness things to testify about.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    Sure, but we already know false/confused testimony is a massive problem, so is it necessarily the case that limiting it to professionals would be worse? Professionals analyzing the evidence, video tapes, etc. We're already moving towards universal surveillance. Many states ban one-party phone/in-person chat recordings, but if we allowed one-party recordings anywhere, any dispute over conversations could be resolved with personal recordings. Just a thought exercise.
- sethammons 7y ago
  In the jury I sat on, we had a question about the the law and it's wording. The response we got was, "you have already received your instructions." Gee, thanks. Someone more well versed might have better understood the definition.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    One of the juries I served, in the UK, had a similar question about a specific aspect of the law related to the trial. There was a 30 minute recess and judge, prosecution and defence discussed how best to explain - presumably without influencing in favour of either side - then we were brought back, told, and asked if that was enough. It was surprisingly involved for what we thought a simple clarification. Having been on the inside of juries now, it restores some faith in some aspects, but you also realise far clearer where potential problems and limits are.
  - 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
    Why not reject the law if it’s wording is too confusing and difficult to apply?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    That is actual part of why we use non-professional juries. If instructions are vague or confusing, they want the jury to decide what the instructions mean, not the lawyers or judge.

kevingadd 7y ago

What specifically makes "professional jurors" better, though? I won't say the idea isn't appealing, but what about making them professionals makes them better than our peers? There are already a bunch of heavily regulated professionals involved in the process so it's kind of arbitrary to claim that we need to regulate more of it. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too?

EliRivers 7y ago
There are many ways for juries to just get things wrong, to misunderstand their role, to misunderstand the law, and so on. Sometimes these errors get recognised and corrected, at a cost; sometimes they just plain don't. Some jurors simply don't know how to pay attention and keep track for extended periods of time. Some education and training in advance could create massively more competent juries. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too? Because we don't have a time machine to place professional witnesses where they need to be in order to witness things to testify about.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  Sure, but we already know false/confused testimony is a massive problem, so is it necessarily the case that limiting it to professionals would be worse? Professionals analyzing the evidence, video tapes, etc. We're already moving towards universal surveillance. Many states ban one-party phone/in-person chat recordings, but if we allowed one-party recordings anywhere, any dispute over conversations could be resolved with personal recordings. Just a thought exercise.
sethammons 7y ago
In the jury I sat on, we had a question about the the law and it's wording. The response we got was, "you have already received your instructions." Gee, thanks. Someone more well versed might have better understood the definition.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  One of the juries I served, in the UK, had a similar question about a specific aspect of the law related to the trial. There was a 30 minute recess and judge, prosecution and defence discussed how best to explain - presumably without influencing in favour of either side - then we were brought back, told, and asked if that was enough. It was surprisingly involved for what we thought a simple clarification. Having been on the inside of juries now, it restores some faith in some aspects, but you also realise far clearer where potential problems and limits are.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  Why not reject the law if it’s wording is too confusing and difficult to apply?
- gamblor956 7y ago
  That is actual part of why we use non-professional juries. If instructions are vague or confusing, they want the jury to decide what the instructions mean, not the lawyers or judge.