Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kevin Dorner · 08-09-2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Splat:
But it's scarey to think that this guy could very easily have ended up in jail (at huge expense) because 12 of his "peers" couldn't think their way out of a matchbox.

If by some chance you haven't already seen the (IMHO excellent) movie "Twelve Angry Men" (1957, stars Henry Fonda) by all means do! You'll find it eerily familar to what you encountered first-hand, and kudos for taking the effort to keep an innocent person out of prison.

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

Philosoft · 08-09-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jankin:
The qualification for a jury is not intelligence, but whether or not they are the accused's "peers". Since many accused are theists, shouldn't they be tried by theists?

Is this a serious question?

Caverdude · 08-09-2002, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger:


The last time I was called to jury duty, I made it all the way to the final selection process. The defense attourney asked me what I do for a living, and I told him that I was a college professor and biologist. He dismissed me immediately.

Sad to say, the ability to think is not what lawyers are looking for when they put together a jury.

Personally, I like a suggestion that Marilyn vos Savant once made: get rid of juries entirely. Instead, have cases decided by a panel made up of judges. Not only would they have a far better grasp of the law than the average citizen, but they'd be far less likely to be swayed by emotional arguments, and so more capable of reaching a fair verdict.

Cheers,

Michael

I did jury duty only once so my personal experience is limited. My wife, however, works as a paralegal in a large law firm, so I get some more insight from that source. Michael is right in that lawyers generally do NOT want educated people in the jury box. They want pliable minds that they can sway with their arguements. The best solution would be professional jurors who have some basic understanding of the legal system. I don't think this will ever happen though.

Oresta · 08-10-2002, 04:13 AM

Quote:

I did jury duty only once so my personal experience is limited. My wife, however, works as a paralegal in a large law firm, so I get some more insight from that source. Michael is right in that lawyers generally do NOT want educated people in the jury box. They want pliable minds that they can sway with their arguements.

By my observations, this is true. I have been summoned for jury duty more times than I can count, and have observed the empanelling of dozens of juries. During the selection process, both defense and prosecution tend to dismiss anyone who has served before as juror.

I have served on two juries, both murder trials. On the first we got a conviction after 41/2 days of deliberation. The experience was a sobering one; one member sat silent throughout and voted only once at the end with the rest of us. Another believed the defendant to be guilty because "he was smart for a foreigner." Afterwards, we learned this was the third trial. The first two juries were hung; one 10-2 guilty, the other 10-2 innocent.
On my second jury experience , a clearly guilty murderer walked because of one bizarre jurist who held out for acquittal. This jurist kept spinning elaborate scenarios for the defendant that had nothing to do with the evidence.

Quote:

The best solution would be professional jurors who have some basic understanding of the legal system. I don't think this will ever happen though.

Despite my belief that the jury system is a crap shoot, I don't see "professional juries" as a solution. Would they be selected by appointment? If so, by whom? Would they be elected? What would be the criteria? How keep this body from becoming politicized?

Personally, if I ever were charged with a felony, I'd waive my right to a jury of my "peers" and take my chances on the judge who got my case.

Edited for clarity.

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

tgamble · 08-10-2002, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainDave:
Stabby,

I don't know what your experience has been with creationists you have known personally, but I think you will learn not to underestimate them in general. Many of them are logical thinkers in every way EXCEPT when they have a vested emotional interest in an issue - such as whether humanity has a devine origin or evolved from lesser life forms.

It's not only religious people who fall prey to this. Albert Einstein's philisophical worldview led him to reject quantum mechanics and even to re-work his own theories. He later called it, "The biggest mistake of my life."

Forget banning creationists from jury duty.

Can we make Kent Hovind an exception?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.