The system needs to be tweaked.What i see is that in America, it is a more serious crime if you try and evade taxes than murdering someone.
If you try to cheat the Government out of a few dollars,you can bet your life 100% that you will be found guilty and do some serious time in prison for tax fraud,but you can murder someone and be found innocent and walk free.Something is wrong with that picture when evading taxes is considered,and treated a more serious crime than murder.
this is sick, and MUST be changed.
We had OJ Simpson,Robert Blake,and Now Casey Anthony,this is not good.there was no justice for this child.
anyone claiming we have the best justice in the world,is missing a few screws,and their elevators don't go all the way to the top
Do we need to refrom the jury selection process?
Geenie Nabottle
2011/07/07 19:15:53
|
|
|||||
|
17 votes
|
|
55% | ||
|
7 votes
|
|
23% | ||
|
7 votes
|
|
23% | ||
I am confident in the belief that our American judicial system is one of the best in the world. When I say “American judicial system” I am referring to the overall process of having a trial with legal representation for both sides and allowing a jury of one’s peers to decide guilt or innocence of the charges levied.
What I believe we need reform on is the selection process. Currently in our courts when a defendant is charged and their day in court is set, lawyers move into a mode of psychological & sociological evaluation not of the defendant but of potential jurors. The accurate term is Scientific Jury Selection (SJS).
During this phase experts in law and psychology are often deployed to determine which potential jurors will be most favorable to either the defense or prosecution. Boutique law firms have sprung up since the 70’s, when this practice first began that specialize in jury selection.
I believe that SJS taints the 12 man jury system that up to this point has worked fairly well for our country, despite recent cases where public sentiment has run contrary to jurors decisions.
Perhaps we need to introduce some reforms to the jury selection process in order to protect our judicial system. Here are a couple of reforms we may need and why.
1. Juror Competency: We all would like to think that the best and brightest among our peers would be in the jury box if we ever had cause to be judged by our peers in court. This unfortunately is not always the case. We ensure that defendants are competent to stand trial; why do we not ensure that jurors are competent enough to fully weigh the details of a case and truly make an informed judgment about the defendants actions?
2. Elimination of Peremptory Challenges: This process more often than not results in undermining the balanced representation on a jury which could occur if random selection was used. Of course there would still be a need for a challenge process which could be used in a limited capacity to eliminate potential jurors that have an obvious bias that could infringe upon the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. An example would be not having a rape victim be on a jury of a person charged with rape. These however should be far a few in between and have specific defined parameters.
Our current system in most states allow for unlimited peremptory challenges for no apparent reason other than ‘experts’ have determined that they will most likely not come back with a favorable decision for their client.
3. Third Party Jury Selection: Neither the prosecution nor the defense should have a say so in who is selected to be on a jury in a case they will argue. A third party entity charged with jury selection and ensuring that there is no obvious bias would be a workable solution. They could also potentially be responsible for ensuring that the jurors are competent to serve on the jury they are selected for. A third party jury selection process brings back the much needed neutrality our judicial system has been lacking.
What do you think……. Do we need Jury Reform?
I was called for jury duty and when I reported to the court desk to announce my arrival for the jury pool, I was given a form to answer a few questions. One of the questions was about what I did for a living, and when I answered that I was an engineer, the court clerk excused me from serving, thanked me for my appearance, and told me I could leave, they didn't need me for the jury pool.
If it's a question of jury reform in general, i may agree, depending on how the process is done.
A couple of Anthony jurors said they might have felt differently if the prosecution hadn't made this a 1st. degree case, and they might have considered a manslaughter verdict.
That being said, I think that those who see the jurors as the problem, clearly have no understanding as to how the system really works. Particularly those who criticize the jurors in the Anthony case. Don't get me wrong, my hunch tells me that she did it too... But I also recognize, and respect the fact that the jurors didn't have the access to the media to help sway their opinions. The technical details are VERY important in cases like this. My opinion, however, is that the prosecution aimed way too high given the amount of evidence they had. (or didn't have) First degree murder while seeking the death penalty requires the highest standard our judical system has. Guilty beyond ALL reasonable doubt. And the fact that there was never a clear cause of death.... That IS reasonable doubt.
How far do we go down the rabbit hole when it come to trying to determine 'juror motives'?
"Heard About Facebook Being Used to Select Jurors? You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet"
http://singularityhub.com/201...
It doesn't take a law degree to understand that the jurors had no choice, but to make the decision that they did. And there might be a few that believe that she really did do it... They might ALL even believe she did. But jurors CANNOT issue a verdict on what they believe outside of what the facts actually prove.
As tough as it may be for some to understand... The Casey Anthony trial did not demonstrate failures in the judicial process.. But rather, it illustrated that it does work.
IF there were to be a case in which a jury senteces someone to death with even less "hard" evidence than in the Anthony trial.. Then I'd have to say that yes, the jury did screw up. Cases involving the death penalty require the highest standards of proof there are. Such as DNA evidence, a murder weapon in the posession of the defendant, witnesses, etc.
If you go to wikipedia and search "exonrated death row inmates". You will find a list of names from the US from each decade of people that have been released from death row after being convicted by juries of their peers. Their names and details of their cases can be found as well.
Because we have all of these instances where people who were plucked from the street and massaged into a 12 man pool selected by 'experts' who clearly made the wrong decisions, I feel that reforms are warranted.
How is the jury at fault, if a witness lies on the stand?
But maybe picking actual peers- might be a good idea.
I think jury duty would work better if we could volunteer for it. Lots of people love being a juror. My mom and in-laws do. Then we would have people who want to be there rather than people who want to go home.
If you have more money you can however buy better results.
This means that the rich can play a better game than the poor and this to me is an unfair advantage.
OJ paid in the 6 million range to get acquired...and there were issues with the case in the chain of evidence. I would not like to think that money is a replacement for guilt or innocence.
The current methods seem to devalue the truth and work the players (jurors and judges).
If you try to cheat the Government out of a few dollars,you can bet your life 100% that you will be found guilty and do some serious time in prison for tax fraud,but you can murder someone and be found innocent and walk free.Something is wrong with that picture when evading taxes is considered,and treated a more serious crime than murder.
this is sick, and MUST be changed.
We had OJ Simpson,Robert Blake,and Now Casey Anthony,this is not good.there was no justice for this child.
anyone claiming we have the best justice in the world,is missing a few screws,and their elevators don't go all the way to the top
Recently, I reported for jury duty in February for county court. Before the selection process, every juror must state his/her name, who is his/her employer, how long the juror has been working with that employer, what part of the city he/she lives in, and the juror's marital status. The attorneys for both the prosecution and defense take notes about each juror who announces himself/herself. Then when the selection process gets underway, both legal teams are given seven (7) strikes by the judge to use at their discretion to excuse a juror if they believe he/she would not serve their interest to their advantage. I was seated for a criminal trial that involved the sexual assault of a 9-year old girl, but the trial was postponed indefinitely because the prosecutor broke her foot in a hiking trip and I, along with the other jurors, were excused from the impending trial.
I was called for jury duty again last month for Magistrate Court, which deals with petty stuff...the kind that you see in your Judge Judy-type shows. They have the same process. There was a civil trial involving a little old lady who was suing her dentist for an apparent botched dental procedure. The lady's attorney did ...
Recently, I reported for jury duty in February for county court. Before the selection process, every juror must state his/her name, who is his/her employer, how long the juror has been working with that employer, what part of the city he/she lives in, and the juror's marital status. The attorneys for both the prosecution and defense take notes about each juror who announces himself/herself. Then when the selection process gets underway, both legal teams are given seven (7) strikes by the judge to use at their discretion to excuse a juror if they believe he/she would not serve their interest to their advantage. I was seated for a criminal trial that involved the sexual assault of a 9-year old girl, but the trial was postponed indefinitely because the prosecutor broke her foot in a hiking trip and I, along with the other jurors, were excused from the impending trial.
I was called for jury duty again last month for Magistrate Court, which deals with petty stuff...the kind that you see in your Judge Judy-type shows. They have the same process. There was a civil trial involving a little old lady who was suing her dentist for an apparent botched dental procedure. The lady's attorney did not wish to seat me in the jury box and I was excused from that trial and I wasn't seated for the rest of the day (my duty was done). Again, no rhyme...no reason. These lawyers have some sort of formula that they use for picking jurors and nobody knows how they come up with their decisions to accept or excuse a juror.
Will you be more likely to be lenient or strict? More likely to convict or acquit?
If you had an incidence of sexual assault in your past and the 9 year old girl was allegedly assaulted then you may want to get your revenge. The questions you see as not pertinent could be to gauge your responses so that when they ask the real key question they have a baseline to read from.
Jury duty is a civic duty for the citizens of this country that has morphed into a chore no one wants.
Poorly argued and overly complicated by the prosecutors.
Have you not sat in on court hearings and trials?
I would suggest that you do so.
As to your question... I did not say or suggest that a trial be based on anything else.
What I am saying is that presentation of evidence should be better presented.
How presumptuous of you to suggest that I would infer otherwise. Perhaps you are the classic example of a perspective juror that should always be excused.
I don't think jurors are suppose to be there to be entertained.
So because I can digest facts and i'm an opinionated person I should always be excluded from being cosidered as someone's peer on a jury???
"Heard About Facebook Being Used to Select Jurors? You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet"
http://singularityhub.com/201...