| User | Comment |
|---|
LindaH    | | posted 23-Jun-2007 12:26pm |
I don't like the fact the prosecutor can reject a potential juror for having too much in common with the suspect. A jury of peers means PEERS...
1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
|
Frostbrand  | | posted 23-Jun-2007 12:35pm |
I think too many people have a negative opinion about it, which reduces the quality of the jury pool. I for one would be proud to serve on a jury. It's one form of civil service I know I can do and well. |
| southernyankee | | posted 23-Jun-2007 1:23pm |
I would change it a bit. I would make it MUCH more difficult to boot jurors out by lawyers and prosecutors. I would pass much striker restrictions on what kind of disqualifying questions they can ask. Did you know that they routinely disqualify lawyers, doctors, engineers from the system. The sad part is, no one would complain about being discriminated from the system.
I would increase compensation for showing up and also increase the penalty from trying to get out of jury duty. |
| southernyankee |
I actually agree with Frostband on something.  |
| LindaH |
I was booted for being 'too much' like the suspect. We were both in our 20's, he hung out at the bus station, and I regularly rode the bus and spent a lot of time there waiting for transfer buses. I didn't know him, but the chance we could know the same people made me too much of a risk to the prosecution. How nuts is that? |
| Irene007 | | posted 23-Jun-2007 1:35pm |
I don't even know how they pick jurors here in Canada... |
gambler  | | posted 23-Jun-2007 3:28pm |
I guess its as fair as it can be |
| dab | | posted 23-Jun-2007 4:48pm |
I have lots of opinions about various aspects of our legal system, including jury selection. I'll try not to blather on for too long.
First off, I am against any form of involuntary servitude, no matter what you name it. Call it selective service or jury duty and it's still wrong. People should serve on a jury of their free choice and only of their free choice. If that means, to get sufficient numbers of jurors, that you have to pay them a reasonable amount for their time, that's appropriate. (Along with that I think the loser, in general, ought to pay the court costs, including the jurors fees, and there should be no distinction between civil and criminal cases, but that's getting rather far afield from the original question.)
Then the jurors should be randomly selected from that pool of volunteers. Each juror should be asked if they have any reason why they can't be objective in their deliberations. They may be dismissed if they answer 'yes'. That's it. No more questions and no peremptory challenges. |
| darkshadowsseeker | | posted 23-Jun-2007 8:38pm |
Locally it seems fine, but I think some changes need to be made in some of the larger cities like Los Angeles. I think the OJ Simpson murder trial was a good indicator that changes are needed. The same goes for absolutely not allowing cameras in courtrooms. They're more trouble than they are worth.
|
| JessicaWoman99 | | posted 23-Jun-2007 11:14pm |
I have been called up for jury duty a number of times never ever had to serve and felt it is a waste of my dam time
calling me to do nothing but sit on my dam butt and ask BS questions a waste of my dam time
Hell if the stupid jerks want somebody to serve then hell do not ask those stupid questions I will serve
and this is Colorado they must be smoking some kind of weed in this courtroom?? |
| RGirl | | posted 23-Jun-2007 11:47pm |
I would have to say I don't know enough about it to say. I see stuff on tv....but that's tv. |
jettles  | | posted 24-Jun-2007 7:47am |
most places i know have already made it more convenient in the ways i like...... you can call in the night before you were suppose to be there and possibly not have to show up. in my town, they move you fairly quickly through and let you go if you are not chosen or they won't get to you. the trials for the most part are quite fast.
i think that most people can't get out of jury duty anymore either which makes it more a "trial of your peers". although i do have to say, i thought the jury i was on were quite scary for the most part(not impartial, not very smart, and indecisive). it was an interesting experience. |
Galomorro  | | posted 24-Jun-2007 12:36pm |
I don't like the way it is now. It takes far too long. One has to wait around for hours and come back the next day and sometimes the whole week because they haven't got around to choosing the jurors yet. I don't appreciate the way you are taken forcibly away from your job, your life, your family responsibilities and then have to go thru so much hassle and waiting. I also don't appreciate the way they ask you to tell something about yourself and your name in front of the big crowd--if they want to know about you, they should ask you close-up. You have little choice even if you have good reasons to get out of it, and so many people want to get out of it. If you have a condition that makes it hard for you to sit there all that time -- hyperactive, mind wanders, have to pee often, etc. you need a doctor's excuse. What if you do not have a doctor nor health insurance but still have problems concentrating, etc. -- this is not fair to the person who is on trial. They should let you explain privately in detail in person and then let you go if you really are not a good candidate for sitting there all that time. There are plenty of people who like to serve on juries -- so let them, and pay them a little more to give people more incentive! If a person feels they are NOT a good candidate, then maybe they could pay money NOT to serve -- I would gladly pay anything I could -- $20, even more -- not to have to hassle with all this. It's a bad system and they should speed things up many times more. They are backed up and people are sitting there reading on the floor for hours, or just sitting, because they get called to serve but those in charge aren't able to do things efficiently to get the job done as quickly as possible. It all needs a huge overhaul. |
| Galomorro | | (reply to dab) posted 24-Jun-2007 12:39pm |
I agree! That's it -- involuntary servitude is the phrase I was thinking of -- also whether it is selective service or jury duty: wrong, wrong, wrong!! If they are forced to serve, then it's likely they will not be as effective, they will feel resentful, their minds may wander, etc. |
| bill | | posted 24-Jun-2007 1:17pm |
I've seen situations where it seems pretty messed up. But, I don't really know how to make it better either. |
| bill | | (reply to dab) posted 24-Jun-2007 1:36pm |
Hm, if there's pay in it, your system (based on Heinlein's, right?) could mean we'll end up with professional jurors (like modern politicians). Actually, this seems very likely to me, since doing jury duty is seen as such a burden by most people, having to take days off from their regular job, etc. A cottage industry for jurors would form. People with free time who hang out at the courthouse, hoping to make some money.
Plus you suggest that we should use the honor system to determine if any juror (who is being paid) is biased. That seems like it could lead to trouble. Even if the jurors are objective despite these factors, I think it could lead to other people assuming they are biased, thus perception of fairness in our legal system would suffer. What about a situation where there's some obvious bias, a Neo-Nazi randomly selected as a juror for an alleged racially-motivated murder? It seems like we'd still need some way to eliminated people who appear biased. But, I guess that's where the trouble comes in, that's not easy to do since everyone is biased. |
| JessicaWoman99 | | (reply to Galomorro) posted 24-Jun-2007 3:47pm |
> I don't like the way it is now. It takes far too long. One has to
> wait around for hours and come back the next day and sometimes the
> whole week because they haven't got around to choosing the jurors
> yet. I don't appreciate the way you are taken forcibly away from
> your job, your life, your family responsibilities and then have to
> go thru so much hassle and waiting. I also don't appreciate the way
> they ask you to tell something about yourself and your name in front
> of the big crowd--if they want to know about you, they should ask
> you close-up. You have little choice even if you have good reasons
> to get out of it, and so many people want to get out of it. If you
> have a condition that makes it hard for you to sit there all that
> time -- hyperactive, mind wanders, have to pee often, etc. you need
> a doctor's excuse. What if you do not have a doctor nor health insurance
> but still have problems concentrating, etc. -- this is not fair to
> the person who is on trial. They should let you explain privately
> in detail in person and then let you go if you really are not a good
> candidate for sitting there all that time. There are plenty of people
> who like to serve on juries -- so let them, and pay them a little
> more to give people more incentive! If a person feels they are NOT
> a good candidate, then maybe they could pay money NOT to serve --
> I would gladly pay anything I could -- $20, even more -- not to have
> to hassle with all this. It's a bad system and they should speed things
> up many times more. They are backed up and people are sitting there
> reading on the floor for hours, or just sitting, because they get
> called to serve but those in charge aren't able to do things efficiently
> to get the job done as quickly as possible. It all needs a huge overhaul.
This sounds very much like the state of Colorado and same thing here sit around for hours and hours after
taking time off from work then you find out you are not going to serve as a juror
This has happened to me nearly every year and I mean every year
if I am not a good candidate then they should just let me know right then and there and let me out of there
I would gladly serve on any jury but no by their standards no I never will
this really sucks having to go through all the BS they put us thru |
| dab | | (reply to bill) posted 24-Jun-2007 7:50pm |
Not based on anything from Heinlein as far as I know. It's actually more consciously based on some work by Eric Klein (not entirely sure of spelling) from a defunct project called Oceania, the Atlantis Project. I think you're right that it's possible, even likely, that a group of professional jurors would arise. I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.
It wouldn't have to be entirely the honor system to determine if a juror is biased. There could be the option of bringing legal proceedings against a juror who misrepresented the truth in saying they were not biased. The problem is exactly what you get to at the end. It seems "obvious" that we need to be able to remove people are are clearly biased. However, that path leads to where we are now with peremptory challenges and anyone who knows anything about the subject of the trial being removed for "cause". Better I think (though not perfect of course) to have the jury be randomly selected from the juror pool. You can guarantee biased people from time to time, but the system we have now seems to systematically generate bad juries. |
Iseult  | | posted 24-Jun-2007 8:41pm |
Let me express my opinion in a very detailed explanation since I know so much about the jury selection system in the US.
That was sarcasm by the way. |
| Galomorro |
Yes, they should speed things up hugely. People do have LIVES; even if they feel they should serve as a duty, it's still not fair for them to make people hang so long. Why can't they give this some intensive study and make some big, positive changes for once? |
| JessicaWoman99 | | (reply to Galomorro) posted 24-Jun-2007 9:26pm |
> Yes, they should speed things up hugely. People do have LIVES; even
> if they feel they should serve as a duty, it's still not fair for
> them to make people hang so long. Why can't they give this some intensive
> study and make some big, positive changes for once?
And they act like we do not have a life or a job and waste our time my boss she needs me dearly
this is a real good survey and this survey should be sent to Courtrooms around the country
and have them learn by this?
Yes a very intensive study or some kind of changes need to be done
and I would love to be in Perry Masons courtroom as a juror might be interesting
Why do they not just hire people for jury work would be good idea? |
| bill | | (reply to dab) posted 24-Jun-2007 10:08pm |
I thought of Heinlein because there's a part of "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" where they have a kind of impromptu trial, with both sides hiring the judge and other court positions (maybe some kind of jury, I'm fuzzy on the details) and I think it had the loser pays aspect too.
What you outlined is a pretty interesting idea. I think it would be cool if our society was able/willing to try out ideas like this in some controlled setting, to see how well it would work. I suppose it sort of happens with different states trying their own solutions to problems, then other states adopting the idea, if it seems to work out. But, it's usually not so radical a change. But, maybe some smallish state could try out the ideas you're talking about and we could see how it works out. It would be interesting.
I'm not really sure anything we try will be much of an improvement. The whole legal system, particularly courts, seems like a big compromise which tries to balance lots of factors. It's bound to have highs and lows and people unhappy one way or another. On GameTZ I try to help traders who have disputes. I end up playing the judge a little and it's about compromise most of the time. |
| Enigma | | posted 24-Jun-2007 10:41pm |
Well now.... I don't know anything about jury selection in the United States. Except for what I might see in the movies and a person can't really trust that can she?
Or should I go by Pauly Shores "Jury Duty"?  |
| LindaH | | posted 24-Jun-2007 10:43pm |
They should just drive around and drag people out of their houses at random, kicking and screaming. |
| Galomorro |
Exactly. There are some people that love this kind of thing. Why force it on people who try everything they can to get out of it? |
| JessicaWoman99 | | (reply to Galomorro) posted 25-Jun-2007 12:45am |
> Exactly. There are some people that love this kind of thing. Why force
> it on people who try everything they can to get out of it?
Yea really and now we are seeing the real picture here, ( Ad in Paper looking to hire New Jurors Washington Court
House yes I will apply for this and the pay? ok $50.00 pays my time and my gas for being there
Is the way they should have this whole system and then watch people line up for the job instead of forcing it on us
and ramming the system down our throat |
| JessicaWoman99 | | (reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jun-2007 12:47am |
> They should just drive around and drag people out of their houses
> at random, kicking and screaming.
They already do that here in Colorado if you Linda do not show up for jury duty, yes the police will drag you screaming'
and yelling all the way to the courthouse is their way of doing it here |
| docgbrown | | posted 25-Jun-2007 1:12am |
Other: I think its fine the way it is but this is how I'd change it: Like the US military court martial system, I'd let jurors ask questions directly, during the trial, to cut down on ambiguity and confusion to shorten deliberation time and improve verdict accuracy |
| Enheduanna | | posted 25-Jun-2007 1:19am |
I don't especially like it, but I'm not exactly sure how I'd change it. I don't think that lawyers should have quite as much control over the selection process as they do. A lot of the people who end up on juries really don't do a great job of it, I think. It would be better to have people with more of an understanding of the legal system on juries, but I also understand having a more democratic process for it. I don't know what the solution is. |
| LindaH | | posted 25-Jun-2007 1:24am |
I think jurors should be informed that they can find a person "innocent" if they disagree with the law itself. (It's true. They can.) |
| docgbrown |
I also agree with Frostband, southernyankee and LindaH. I found their statements insightful and to them I thank them for their input |
| cerealkiller | | posted 25-Jun-2007 1:31pm |
The selection system is fine. Not sure about the jury trial system though. I've been a juror various times including a murder case and I find most jurors don't want to put much though into it and just want to find the person on trail guilty and go home. |
| EyesOfCharisma | | posted 25-Jun-2007 3:15pm |
It is fine the way it is... I have never been called  |
| Zang | | posted 26-Jun-2007 4:20pm |
I think it should be more like the presidential elections. They've really got to figure out some way that only rich, old white guys can be on a jury. |
| cloudhugger | | posted 27-Jun-2007 6:52am |
I don't know enough aout it, ut it doesn't seem fair.
Random my ass. |
| cloudhugger | | (reply to docgbrown) posted 27-Jun-2007 7:03am |
People on trial pay ig money for a lawyer who can ask or not ask all the right questions. Lawyers jobs are to sway the jury, the couldn't have the jury clarifying or asking anything. |
| docgbrown |
Thats fine for civil, but for criminal trials I like this part of the military system that allows jurors to cut to the chase by limiting the spin lawyers try to pull during trials |
| cloudhugger | | (reply to docgbrown) posted 28-Jun-2007 9:41am |
Trial by peers...trial y awesome lawyers...I think I would prefer to e juried by peers anyway. |
| docgbrown |
yup |
| mrmarm |
Australian and I don't even have a clue about my jury selecting system, well not entirely anyway. |
