- NEW!
by RiverRat on June 27th, 2009
agreed, but it's better than the alternative of having elected people make those decisions. Politicians on a jury make me shudder....
by GreenFreak on June 27th, 2009
To avoid elitism, I assume
by Pixie - jeg er elsket on June 27th, 2009
Wow, totally agreed!
And whats sad is that if the majority says guilty, and one person says not guilty - that one person will change their answer just to get out quicker.
So messed up.
by Andrew on June 27th, 2009
It is for you to have a jury of your peers. Average people just like you who might see things from the same perspective being considered more fair than a group of people that look down on you from their pedestals, looking at cold sterile facts. I can see plusses on both sides, but I think that someone who sees as I do might get me out of a pickle.
by jimmypaddy on June 27th, 2009
it's the idea of keeping the public feeling safe in their own minds by having people of all different backgrounds making up key decisions.
by Anonymous on June 27th, 2009
There are circles of people whom have called for "professional juries". These folks would be paid to serve on juries. As taken from the Wall Street Journal, "We’re in the 21st Century, and our legal system uses a method of adjudication that was invented in the Middle Ages. It’s time for a more professional way of resolving legal disputes, one where the decisionmakers are not a bunch of often-unwilling people plucked from the street, forced to upend their lives to resolve the disputes of others, and without the expertise to evaluate the facts and apply the law."
by Mr. Knowitall- The Poli Sci Guy on June 27th, 2009
a jury of our peers...
the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so must prove to reasonable people that the defendent is guilty. and the people who dont care are eliminated early
by Rollie on June 27th, 2009
It has already been said. A jury of peers, people like the person being tried for a crime. No intellectuals or politicians judging the person (unless he/she happens to be one).
And, no one likes jury duty. It's hard work sitting there giving your full attention and then having to make a decision regarding a person's freedom. The trial can go on for a long time and the pay isn't very much. Juries really don't pass sentence in criminal cases, the judge does that and sometimes it's a panel or committee.
And, who better to decide your guilt of innocence than persons like yourself. If you are an "unqualified schmo" the people who pass the judgment will be unqualified schmos also. :)
by Sheriff Raff -Answerhag on June 27th, 2009
It's all propaganda, now that you have realized it for yourself, you can join the other disillusioned hordes in America.
by Siyanor on June 27th, 2009
I'd like to know the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't know, so I can't answer.
A federal juror questionnaire or summons was mailed to my old address. I now live in another state/district. What should I do?
by Tight E. Whitey on September 6th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What two states allow physcic to testfi in court
by tonybme on July 14th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What qualifications are required for jury service in the English Legal system and what is the process of selection?
by stinger92 on May 22nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
The right to a jury trial is a "right inviolate". Is it constitutional to require a person to pay a jury fee in order to claim that right?
by SeeMyProfile on August 12th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Jury Nullification: If you served on a jury and you believed the defendant was justified in their behavior
by Ellis on July 17th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Why do we have Juries comprised of everyday citizens? What says "Justice" more than a bunch of unqualified schmos who don't even like Jury Duty?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments