One Trip Or Two Trip

[TopGunner]

I'm simply baffled by what you wrote in this post!!

What exactly are you saying here?..are you saying that white male landowners would score better than others in logic tests? are you saying that people in the south would do poorly in logic tests????

I hope you would agree that the ability to apply logic has nothing to do with color..gender.. south or north..rich or poor...etc...


AW2B, I could be wrong, but I think he was saying just the opposite. Like, umm, he was being sarcastic? :tongue:

[adnoid]

AW2B, I could be wrong, but I think he was saying just the opposite. Like, umm, he was being sarcastic? :tongue:

My point was that our justice system has progressed toward being more inclusive as time goes by. There was a time when women, or minorities, or other such groups were systematically excluded for various reasons, education level being one. Now, certain posters here feel it would be good to introduce an education requirement in the form of a test on specific logical constructs. They present no evidence that such a test will bring a better jury, they just like it, I would guess from some sort of elitist perspective, because they think they could pass it and others could not.

I'm pretty sure I could pass any logic test they throw at me, but I don't think that would make me a better juror.

After all, there is no legal background required to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice - and there's a good reason for that.

[TopGunner]

My point was that our justice system has progressed toward being more inclusive as time goes by. There was a time when women, or minorities, or other such groups were systematically excluded for various reasons, education level being one. Now, certain posters here feel it would be good to introduce an education requirement in the form of a test on specific logical constructs. They present no evidence that such a test will bring a better jury, they just like it, I would guess from some sort of elitist perspective, because they think they could pass it and others could not.

I'm pretty sure I could pass any logic test they throw at me, but I don't think that would make me a better juror.

After all, there is no legal background required to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice - and there's a good reason for that.


See, I knew I could be wrong, LOL!

Great post Adnoid, ITA.:biggrin:

[accordn2me]

My point was that our justice system has progressed toward being more inclusive as time goes by. There was a time when women, or minorities, or other such groups were systematically excluded for various reasons, education level being one. Now, certain posters here feel it would be good to introduce an education requirement in the form of a test on specific logical constructs. They present no evidence that such a test will bring a better jury, they just like it, I would guess from some sort of elitist perspective, because they think they could pass it and others could not.

I'm pretty sure I could pass any logic test they throw at me, but I don't think that would make me a better juror.

After all, there is no legal background required to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice - and there's a good reason for that.

I would probably outright fail the logic test.

I think I would make a damn good juror.

I'm not sure how I feel about professional jurors. When I hear about juries like the ones who acquitted OJ, let Mary Winkler go with a light slap on the wrist, :flamemad: and hung on Phil Spector....:eek: ..it actually makes me have fantasies about vigilantes. :patriot: Professional jurors might appeal to the more "refined" of society. :cool:

[deputydi]

My point was that our justice system has progressed toward being more inclusive as time goes by. There was a time when women, or minorities, or other such groups were systematically excluded for various reasons, education level being one. Now, certain posters here feel it would be good to introduce an education requirement in the form of a test on specific logical constructs. They present no evidence that such a test will bring a better jury, they just like it, I would guess from some sort of elitist perspective, because they think they could pass it and others could not.

I'm pretty sure I could pass any logic test they throw at me, but I don't think that would make me a better juror.

After all, there is no legal background required to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice - and there's a good reason for that.
Excellent post and I couldn't agree with you more!

MOST jurors take their obligation very seriously and follow the instructions they are given. In the cases involving OJ, Mary Winkler and Phil Specter, most of us believe wholeheartedly that they should be spending a long time as guests of their respective states. We didn't sit on those juries. It's not enough legally to convict based on a feeling or a strong suspicion. The jurors may have believed the defendants are guilty, but that's not the way our system works. The prosecution MUST prove their case BARD or the defendant walks. Although I believe completely that OJ is a murderer, I would have voted to acquit also. The prosecution failed. Phil Specter -- did the prosecution prove BARD that it was an intentional act on his part? I don't think so. I would probably have been one of those jurors that caused a mistrial. Mary Winkler -- there is no question that she shot her husband. There seemed to be extenuating circumstances. I'm not convinced that she did it in cold blood because of financial problems.

Professional juries (IMO) is a ridiculous idea and one that absolutely would not work. Our system has its flaws and guilty defendants walk and innocent defendants are convicted. Doesn't seem fair, but the vast majority of the time our system of justice works. There is NO completely perfect system anywhere in the world. The only thing I would correct is the media madness that surrounds a high profile crime. Some countries -- England is one -- do not allow pretrial publicity of any kind. It is a crime in and of itself. This is a practice that probably wouldn't fly here because of our Constitution and the freedom of the press. It's worth a thought or two.

All my opinion, of course.

[Invrdv8]

I think that would be considered discrimination. And, since the majority of criminals are not very bright, how would they have a jury of their peers?

I had a couple of questions (see Post #241) about your comments here. I'd be very interested in hearing your reasoning behind your comments. :confused:

[Mysteri]

I strongly believe Scott didn't have the boat with him on the 24th, in the morning/afternoon. I base this on the fact that Scott invented interactions with the park employees (bumping into the pylon and them laughing at him)to Brocchini.

Those employees were all known and all testified.. The Geragos team did not even attempt to question them and verify that Scott was THERE on a short, innocuous fishing trip.. Why? Because he wasn't there with the boat. He was watching, watching.. He knew they were there, so he made up the lie to Brocchini, but they NEVER SAW HIM.

There is no other possible or reasonable explanation why the employees were not questioned about seeing Scott. THAT WAS HIS ALIBI.. Geragos might have said...

Geragos: And you saw Scott with his boat...
Employee; YES
Geragos: And you saw nothing odd, just a normal guy fishing, right?
Employee: Right..
Geragos: Did he look like he was hiding a body in that small boat?
Employee: No, I could see nothing like that.

If that testimony would have occurred, the jury would have hung..

But not one single solitary person saw Scott in the afternoon that day.. NONE. ZERO.. No evidence of any boat. Not one person can vouch for anything he says about hooking up the boat or traveling to the bay and fishing...

Great points.
Sadly I have always thought that he knocked Laci out, bound and gagged her and drove her to the Bay where he dumped her in ALIVE. I think he drove her right by her father's property in Escalon and gloated about it because he knew Dennis Rocha detested him.


imo

[Luke Davis]

So Nancy Grace wasn't familiar with that particular marina or that particular area of the bay.

What's that supposed to mean? She wasn't a juror.
Not sure when she made her comment but she did go to the marina, Laci's house and several other areas. She had expert advisors on her show as far as tides, fishing, bay topography, etc.

MOO

[Luke Davis]

12 jurors, well duh! No, I mean REALLY discuss how professional jurors would work. You would need alternates. Would they only be for criminal court case or specifically murder cases or DP cases? How many would you need for each courthouse? Would they move around from county to county or even state to state? What disciplines would they have to be educated in? Forensics, Constitutional law, LE procedures, appeallate law, medical, science, etc.? Or would they just have to have passed your applied logic test? Who would pay their salaries, benefits, health care? If it's the state (the taxpayers) and they all voted against something the public (or you) thought was right, would they be accused or "working for the state"?

I know a few people with high IQ's who don't have a lick of common sense.

My point is you can't keep harping on "professional jurors" without discussing how it would/could work. Well, I guess you can but I won't take it seriously.

JMO

Because the courts are so busy in California, sometimes parties agree to arbitration. Several professional arbitrators are listed and the parties agree. It wouldn't be a stretch to just extend that to a jury. To save money, six might be enough.

The prosecution and defence could submit a list of 10 names. From the 20 names, 6 would be agreed on. Professional jurors would be watched and records kept similar to sports officials.

Rookies would start in small cases and gradually work there way up to the big cases. Those who are fair would probably be selected more than those with a bias.

MOO

[Mysteri]

Not sure when she made her comment but she did go to the marina, Laci's house and several other areas. She had expert advisors on her show as far as tides, fishing, bay topography, etc.

MOO

Nancy went out on a boat in the Bay as well. Not to mention on one of the searches for the anchors.


imo

[enlightenme]

Because the courts are so busy in California, sometimes parties agree to arbitration. Several professional arbitrators are listed and the parties agree. It wouldn't be a stretch to just extend that to a jury. To save money, six might be enough.

The prosecution and defence could submit a list of 10 names. From the 20 names, 6 would be agreed on. Professional jurors would be watched and records kept similar to sports officials.

Rookies would start in small cases and gradually work there way up to the big cases. Those who are fair would probably be selected more than those with a bias.

MOO

Who would decide which ones are "fair" as opposed to which ones are "biased"?

[aingael]

Professional jurors would cause more problems than they would be worth.

I have heard this “argument” on another board and it always surprises me that the most obvious factors are not considered by the one who brings professional jurists up.

First of all, in order to have professional jurists the pool of possible unbiased candidates is brought down to a very small pool. While the jury system as we employ now there are virtually thousands to choose from in any given area, in contrast, a professional jury pool might bring that pool down to perhaps a couple dozen. This not only brings bias more to the forefront of possibilities, it also opens up another whole can of worms.

The possibilities of jury tampering when there is only a few dozen candidates becomes a greater risk, in fact almost a given. Professional jurors would become well known and therefore seeking them out in order to taint the vote to a direction in which one side or the other wants would be extremely easy. In addition, more high profile cases the factor of intimidation in order to achieve the preferred verdict from unscrupulous characters would be much easier.

No matter what we do we bring in our thoughts, beliefs and moral compass into it. This would also happen within a professional jury pool. It would never be unbiased as is being put out there. Yes, these same risks happen within the jury system that we employ now, yet the factoring in of objections by either side brings the statistical occurrence down to almost nothing. This is much better odds for both sides than they would have with professional jurists.

These are just a couple of possibilities. Yet, I would like to add another, what citizen is going to bury themselves in an informational void for the rest of their “career” as a jurist? I hazard to think that every person who is a professional jurists would not bury themselves out of the information highway of our daily lives. Never being able to watch the local news, for fear of contamination. Keeping themselves out of public places for fear of overhearing something about a possible case they would be serving on. In actuality the list is endless as to the downside of professional jurists.

The thought of this is foolhardy to say the least. If Scott Peterson had professional jurists, the verdict would have been the same, in fact I hazard to guess that the verdict would have been reached much quicker.

[Lavindar]

Professional jurors would cause more problems than they would be worth.

I have heard this “argument” on another board and it always surprises me that the most obvious factors are not considered by the one who brings professional jurists up.

First of all, in order to have professional jurists the pool of possible unbiased candidates is brought down to a very small pool. While the jury system as we employ now there are virtually thousands to choose from in any given area, in contrast, a professional jury pool might bring that pool down to perhaps a couple dozen. This not only brings bias more to the forefront of possibilities, it also opens up another whole can of worms.

The possibilities of jury tampering when there is only a few dozen candidates becomes a greater risk, in fact almost a given. Professional jurors would become well known and therefore seeking them out in order to taint the vote to a direction in which one side or the other wants would be extremely easy. In addition, more high profile cases the factor of intimidation in order to achieve the preferred verdict from unscrupulous characters would be much easier.

No matter what we do we bring in our thoughts, beliefs and moral compass into it. This would also happen within a professional jury pool. It would never be unbiased as is being put out there. Yes, these same risks happen within the jury system that we employ now, yet the factoring in of objections by either side brings the statistical occurrence down to almost nothing. This is much better odds for both sides than they would have with professional jurists.

These are just a couple of possibilities. Yet, I would like to add another, what citizen is going to bury themselves in an informational void for the rest of their “career” as a jurist? I hazard to think that every person who is a professional jurists would not bury themselves out of the information highway of our daily lives. Never being able to watch the local news, for fear of contamination. Keeping themselves out of public places for fear of overhearing something about a possible case they would be serving on. In actuality the list is endless as to the downside of professional jurists.

The thought of this is foolhardy to say the least. If Scott Peterson had professional jurists, the verdict would have been the same, in fact I hazard to guess that the verdict would have been reached much quicker.

Well said

[Luke Davis]

Who would decide which ones are "fair" as opposed to which ones are "biased"?The lawyers or in some cases jury consultants. It's done now with arbitrators and most people know about judge shopping.

MOO

[Miss Bootsie]

Professional jurors would cause more problems than they would be worth.

I have heard this “argument” on another board and it always surprises me that the most obvious factors are not considered by the one who brings professional jurists up.

First of all, in order to have professional jurists the pool of possible unbiased candidates is brought down to a very small pool. While the jury system as we employ now there are virtually thousands to choose from in any given area, in contrast, a professional jury pool might bring that pool down to perhaps a couple dozen. This not only brings bias more to the forefront of possibilities, it also opens up another whole can of worms.

The possibilities of jury tampering when there is only a few dozen candidates becomes a greater risk, in fact almost a given. Professional jurors would become well known and therefore seeking them out in order to taint the vote to a direction in which one side or the other wants would be extremely easy. In addition, more high profile cases the factor of intimidation in order to achieve the preferred verdict from unscrupulous characters would be much easier.

No matter what we do we bring in our thoughts, beliefs and moral compass into it. This would also happen within a professional jury pool. It would never be unbiased as is being put out there. Yes, these same risks happen within the jury system that we employ now, yet the factoring in of objections by either side brings the statistical occurrence down to almost nothing. This is much better odds for both sides than they would have with professional jurists.

These are just a couple of possibilities. Yet, I would like to add another, what citizen is going to bury themselves in an informational void for the rest of their “career” as a jurist? I hazard to think that every person who is a professional jurists would not bury themselves out of the information highway of our daily lives. Never being able to watch the local news, for fear of contamination. Keeping themselves out of public places for fear of overhearing something about a possible case they would be serving on. In actuality the list is endless as to the downside of professional jurists.

The thought of this is foolhardy to say the least. If Scott Peterson had professional jurists, the verdict would have been the same, in fact I hazard to guess that the verdict would have been reached much quicker.

Great post Aingael :seeya:

[Luke Davis]

Professional jurors would cause more problems than they would be worth.

That is possible.

I have heard this “argument” on another board and it always surprises me that the most obvious factors are not considered by the one who brings professional jurists up.

That's possible too but I'm not sure what that proves. Even a blind hog can find an acorn. I'm sure, given enough time, I could venture to another board and find someone opposed to the idea who can not express an opinion up to your standard.

First of all, in order to have professional jurists the pool of possible unbiased candidates is brought down to a very small pool. While the jury system as we employ now there are virtually thousands to choose from in any given area, in contrast, a professional jury pool might bring that pool down to perhaps a couple dozen. This not only brings bias more to the forefront of possibilities, it also opens up another whole can of worms.

Why does the pool have to be small? Unless you are suggesting that a huge majority are unqualified, which it seems is more reason to have professional jurors. The bias could be evaluated and dealt with, just as one does now.

The possibilities of jury tampering when there is only a few dozen candidates becomes a greater risk, in fact almost a given. Professional jurors would become well known and therefore seeking them out in order to taint the vote to a direction in which one side or the other wants would be extremely easy. In addition, more high profile cases the factor of intimidation in order to achieve the preferred verdict from unscrupulous characters would be much easier.

I don't see the reasoning that the jurors would become well known. Are you suggesting that judges are well known?

No matter what we do we bring in our thoughts, beliefs and moral compass into it. This would also happen within a professional jury pool. It would never be unbiased as is being put out there. Yes, these same risks happen within the jury system that we employ now, yet the factoring in of objections by either side brings the statistical occurrence down to almost nothing. This is much better odds for both sides than they would have with professional jurists.

While bias can not be eliminated it can be measured. This would be easier with a small group that is known.

These are just a couple of possibilities. Yet, I would like to add another, what citizen is going to bury themselves in an informational void for the rest of their “career” as a jurist?

There is no need for this. Do you think judges are uninformed?

I hazard to think that every person who is a professional jurists would not bury themselves out of the information highway of our daily lives. Never being able to watch the local news, for fear of contamination. Keeping themselves out of public places for fear of overhearing something about a possible case they would be serving on. In actuality the list is endless as to the downside of professional jurists.

Hearing news reports does not necessarily make a possible juror biased.

The thought of this is foolhardy to say the least. If Scott Peterson had professional jurists, the verdict would have been the same, in fact I hazard to guess that the verdict would have been reached much quicker.

It's easy to agree with you here but one case is hardly a disqualification on the idea.


My comments in eye pleasing Magenta.:hat:

[Otter]

The lawyers or in some cases jury consultants. It's done now with arbitrators and most people know about judge shopping.

MOO

Hi Luke! Arbitration is very common where I live and the arb is normally a retired judge. Its a wonderful way to clear up CIVIL court calendars IMO, but do you really think it would work in a criminal court?

I don't think so, the stakes of freedom vs. money is way different. I just can't imagine relying on "professional jurors" for my life. Can you? Can you even imagine that concept even being put forth? The jurors in SP's case have been accused of everything under the sun. I sure wouldn't want to come under the microscope ... would you?

I hazard to think that every person who is a professional jurists would not bury themselves out of the information highway of our daily lives. Never being able to watch the local news, for fear of contamination. Keeping themselves out of public places for fear of overhearing something about a possible case they would be serving on. In actuality the list is endless as to the downside of professional jurists.

Hearing news reports does not necessarily make a possible juror biased.

Aingael's argument is so fundamentally sound. Think about it (no pun intended) ... how would they know what they might be called upon to hear? And what a small pool they would indeed be! How could they listen to ANY news? There's a trial, jury selection first, that I've been hearing about for 4+ years -- by virtue of reading the newspaper I can't escape it. I'm not interested in it, but he's guilty. Long story, any right minded person would think that.

IMO, a noble thought, a bunch of purely empirical thinking people ready to sit in judgment. Unfortunately, not what our Constitution says. :patriot:

I love the magenta!

[Luke Davis]

Hi Luke! Arbitration is very common where I live and the arb is normally a retired judge. Its a wonderful way to clear up CIVIL court calendars IMO, but do you really think it would work in a criminal court?

I don't think so, the stakes of freedom vs. money is way different. I just can't imagine relying on "professional jurors" for my life. Can you? Can you even imagine that concept even being put forth? The jurors in SP's case have been accused of everything under the sun. I sure wouldn't want to come under the microscope ... would you?

It might not work well in the American system. I believe it is used in many asian countries and I don't hear them screaming about how bad it is. Of course, many Europeon countries just have judges and no jury.



Aingael's argument is so fundamentally sound. Think about it (no pun intended) ... how would they know what they might be called upon to hear? And what a small pool they would indeed be! How could they listen to ANY news? There's a trial, jury selection first, that I've been hearing about for 4+ years -- by virtue of reading the newspaper I can't escape it. I'm not interested in it, but he's guilty. Long story, any right minded person would think that.

IMO, a noble thought, a bunch of purely empirical thinking people ready to sit in judgment. Unfortunately, not what our Constitution says. :patriot:

I love the magenta!
I don't see anything in the Constitution specifically against professional jurors.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Let's call in a FOX expert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHTDM-GhMLw)

:hat: :patriot:

[Lili007]

"Professional Jurors"... I don't like that idea at all. If one looks at the corruption that has been known to happen in government, irrespective of political parties, or even countries, the idea of professional jurors is ludicrous - it only opens more avenues for corruption and for potential miscarriage of justice, IMO.

I thought Justice was supposed to be "blind" and "balanced". Is that concept outdated now?

If it were for jurors to make a career of it, aren't they just as vulnerable to ambition and temptation as any who climb the ladder of "success" in whatever profession of choice, forgetting to care whom or what they step on in the process?

Only it would be of much more concern, because their "professional" judgement would not concern just one person who may have deserved a promotion or some advantage over another, it could mean their lives, literally. Or, conversly, their liberty to commit crime again, and maybe again and again.

We all know that judges have been able to be "influenced" in the past, from notorious trials in history. So think of it this way - ONE judge, TWELVE "professional" jurors. What are the odds of one or more of the 12 "professional" jurors being "influenced" in one way or another?


JMO

[Lili007]

What is so difficult to understand about someone getting everything ready to go fishing so he can do it at the spur of the moment...!!

How about this:


buying a boat that no-one knew about before he was going "fishing" on the spur of the moment
telling his girlfriend that he had lost his wife a few weeks before he bought the boat that he was going to go fishing in on the spur of the moment
buying a fishing licence just in case he wanted to go "fishing" on the spur of the moment, even though he might have a golfing time booked for the same time
Laci disappearing on the day he took his boat "fishing" on the spur of the moment
Laci and Conner's bodies washing up on the shore where Scott went "fishing" on the spur of the moment the day they "disappeared"


I could go on, but I think that's sufficient.

Does that answer your question?


JMO

[Luke Davis]

"Professional Jurors"... I don't like that idea at all. If one looks at the corruption that has been known to happen in government, irrespective of political parties, or even countries, the idea of professional jurors is ludicrous - it only opens more avenues for corruption and for potential miscarriage of justice, IMO.

I thought Justice was supposed to be "blind" and "balanced". Is that concept outdated now?

If it were for jurors to make a career of it, aren't they just as vulnerable to ambition and temptation as any who climb the ladder of "success" in whatever profession of choice, forgetting to care whom or what they step on in the process?

Only it would be of much more concern, because their "professional" judgement would not concern just one person who may have deserved a promotion or some advantage over another, it could mean their lives, literally. Or, conversly, their liberty to commit crime again, and maybe again and again.

We all know that judges have been able to be "influenced" in the past, from notorious trials in history. So think of it this way - ONE judge, TWELVE "professional" jurors. What are the odds of one or more of the 12 "professional" jurors being "influenced" in one way or another?


JMO

You bring up some interesting points Lili007, which remind me of the last time I was a juror. Much of the testimony was not in English but a professional translator was used. I still remember the judges instructions. If we understood the witness we were to ignore that and only go by the official translation to English.

Now, if translators were corrupt that would be very powerful. But they are used everyday without any objection.

[Lili007]

You bring up some interesting points Lili007, which remind me of the last time I was a juror. Much of the testimony was not in English but a professional translator was used. I still remember the judges instructions. If we understood the witness we were to ignore that and only go by the official translation to English.

Now, if translators were corrupt that would be very powerful. But they are used everyday without any objection.

That is another powerful argument, Luke.

I served as an interpreter in court in several cases, many years ago. I didn't even think of that angle. Needless to say, I did my very best to translate everything to the letter, even going to interpreting expressions particular to the languages. It never occurred to me that anyone would do anything else.

But you're quite right - it's a vulnerable point. The only thing I can think of at short notice is to ensure that there are other, independent, people present in the courtroom (whether visible or not) who understand all languages being spoken and who can ring alarm bells when something doesn't sound right or is not properly translated, one way or another. I know it sounds like big brother, but these days and in current circumstances, I think it would be a prudent move.

But my original point was about the vulnerability and potential corruptibility of 12 "professional" jurors... I think that's just too risky.

Just My Opinion.

[aingael]

Originally Posted by aingael
Professional jurors would cause more problems than they would be worth.

That is possible.

I have heard this “argument” on another board and it always surprises me that the most obvious factors are not considered by the one who brings professional jurists up.

I'm a little confused by this, do you mean negative facts or positive facts?

That's possible too but I'm not sure what that proves. Even a blind hog can find an acorn. I'm sure, given enough time, I could venture to another board and find someone opposed to the idea who can not express an opinion up to your standard.

I don't have any "standards" on posts, but when considering something, the negatives that are obvious not even being considered frustrates me. As in most situations the pros and cons should be weighed but when they are not, then whomever brings them up should understand that another person will have considered them and bring them to people's attention.

First of all, in order to have professional jurists the pool of possible unbiased candidates is brought down to a very small pool. While the jury system as we employ now there are virtually thousands to choose from in any given area, in contrast, a professional jury pool might bring that pool down to perhaps a couple dozen. This not only brings bias more to the forefront of possibilities, it also opens up another whole can of worms.

Why does the pool have to be small? Unless you are suggesting that a huge majority are unqualified, which it seems is more reason to have professional jurors. The bias could be evaluated and dealt with, just as one does now.

Remember professional juries would be on the payroll of someone, most likely the county, while any given county could have thousands or hundred of thousand citizens that does not mean that the professional jury pool would be that large. Professional juries would be hired, and therefore would have to receive their paycheck from some entity. Let's face it, the county would most likely be the employer. With this said, would any citizen vote to have a large pool of professional jurists, who's paycheck and benefits come from their tax dollars? I don't think so and chances are many others would feel the same. Likewise, I can't see professional jurists doing their "job" for the same amount of remuneration that the public jurists do now.


The possibilities of jury tampering when there is only a few dozen candidates becomes a greater risk, in fact almost a given. Professional jurors would become well known and therefore seeking them out in order to taint the vote to a direction in which one side or the other wants would be extremely easy. In addition, more high profile cases the factor of intimidation in order to achieve the preferred verdict from unscrupulous characters would be much easier.

I don't see the reasoning that the jurors would become well known. Are you suggesting that judges are well known?

In most instances judges are well known among those who are in the court system. Lawyers, both defense and prosocution, know the judges and the way they run their courtroom. Professional jurors would become just as well known, in fact they could become more well known because they would not be in a specifice courtroom all of the time. Career criminal might run into them more than once. This not only would lead to the possibility of bribery, not only monitarily but physical threats to garner the verdict someone want.

No matter what we do we bring in our thoughts, beliefs and moral compass into it. This would also happen within a professional jury pool. It would never be unbiased as is being put out there. Yes, these same risks happen within the jury system that we employ now, yet the factoring in of objections by either side brings the statistical occurrence down to almost nothing. This is much better odds for both sides than they would have with professional jurists.

While bias can not be eliminated it can be measured. This would be easier with a small group that is known.

How could it be? When a professional juror would be hired, by the county, their job performance and disciplinary actions would have to be set fairly, and even thought they may show bias on one case, they may not on another, therefore disciplinary actions might be slight if at all.

These are just a couple of possibilities. Yet, I would like to add another, what citizen is going to bury themselves in an informational void for the rest of their “career” as a jurist?

There is no need for this. Do you think judges are uninformed?

For the most part, judges are not the one's deciding the case, unless it is a bench trial, but that is also up to the accused. If there were professional jurors, would you think they could just live their own lives, watching the news, talking heads, researching, or would they have to avoid these in order to stay unbiased?

I hazard to think that every person who is a professional jurists would not bury themselves out of the information highway of our daily lives. Never being able to watch the local news, for fear of contamination. Keeping themselves out of public places for fear of overhearing something about a possible case they would be serving on. In actuality the list is endless as to the downside of professional jurists.

Hearing news reports does not necessarily make a possible juror biased.

I agree, that it doesn't but those who are proponents of professional jurors state that it does make for juror bias. This is one of the cornerstones of the belief that Scott Peterson did not get a fair trial, he was convinced by the media. Even with professional jurors, this could also be said and even to a greater degree, because the chances of them not watching any media coverage is less than with a public jury pool.


The thought of this is foolhardy to say the least. If Scott Peterson had professional jurists, the verdict would have been the same, in fact I hazard to guess that the verdict would have been reached much quicker.

It's easy to agree with you here but one case is hardly a disqualification on the idea.

While I may agree with you on this, at this time we are talking about this trial and how professional jurors come into play, not only with Scott but other trials.

[deputydi]

The lawyers or in some cases jury consultants. It's done now with arbitrators and most people know about judge shopping.

MOO
Who would "hire" them? What qualifications would they need? Would they fill out an employment application? Who would sit in judgment of whether or not they were performing their job adequately? Could they be fired and by whom? How would they get paid? Would the individual counties have to foot the bill or would the State be responsible for their wages? Either way, it is just one more burden the taxpayers would ultimately have to bear. How would you guarantee against a hidden bias? How would you protect against corruption? Would voir dire remain as it is? Would they be paid weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or case by case? Would they be entitled to paid vacation/sick/personal time?

These are just a few of the questions I have -- there are many more. Personally, I think this concept creates more problems than we have now but I'd like to hear someone take a shot at answering some of the more troubling questions.

[Lili007]

Who would "hire" them? What qualifications would they need? Would they fill out an employment application? Who would sit in judgment of whether or not they were performing their job adequately? Could they be fired and by whom? How would they get paid? Would the individual counties have to foot the bill or would the State be responsible for their wages? Either way, it is just one more burden the taxpayers would ultimately have to bear. How would you guarantee against a hidden bias? How would you protect against corruption? Would voir dire remain as it is? Would they be paid weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or case by case? Would they be entitled to paid vacation/sick/personal time?

These are just a few of the questions I have -- there are many more. Personally, I think this concept creates more problems than we have now but I'd like to hear someone take a shot at answering some of the more troubling questions.


Exactly the point I tried to make earlier, but for the matter that it's exceptionally better expressed by you. Thank you.

JMO

[Luke Davis]

While I may agree with you on this, at this time we are talking about this trial and how professional jurors come into play, not only with Scott but other trials.I think in the Peterson case, the verdict would have been the same. But the trial could have been much shorter and at less expence.

I also think change of location was very expensive. I think it would have cost much less to have the jurors stay at very nice hotels in Modesto and not have the lawyers, witnesses, LE, and others travel to Redwood City. In my opinion, professional jurors would do away with changing trial locations.

[Otter]

I think in the Peterson case, the verdict would have been the same. But the trial could have been much shorter and at less expence.

I also think change of location was very expensive. I think it would have cost much less to have the jurors stay at very nice hotels in Modesto and not have the lawyers, witnesses, LE, and others travel to Redwood City. In my opinion, professional jurors would do away with changing trial locations.

So what are you saying Luke? Witnesses fly in and out all the time in this age of "professional witnesses". IIRC, a bill for SP's defense was presented to the state of California. The entire point of moving to RC was because the defense screamed that Modesto was prejudiced. SP hired his LA lawyer. Would your scenario preclude that?

Are professional jurors, in this scenario, in every jurisdiction? I just don't understand how these professional jurors would even begin to work. I have a hard time with "jurors of their peers", but only because my mind can't go deep into killing someone to exact respect.

And we're not derailing anything! :D

[Luke Davis]

Who would "hire" them?

They could be independant contractors. When selected they would be paid by the same authority that now pays regular jurors.

What qualifications would they need?

18 years of age.
American citizen.
Resident of the court district.
Able to read, write and speak English.
Clean criminal record.
They might be required to pass a basic test.


Would they fill out an employment application?

They would register with the state. Similar to barbers, engineers, lawyers, etc.

Who would sit in judgment of whether or not they were performing their job adequately?

Board of Professional jurors.

Could they be fired and by whom?

They could be dismissed by the judge just as now. If the infraction was serious, they could loose their licence/certification.

How would they get paid?

They would be paid by the day plus expences.

Would the individual counties have to foot the bill or would the State be responsible for their wages?

Same as now.

Either way, it is just one more burden the taxpayers would ultimately have to bear.

It would be a trade-off. Instead of calling hundreds of people, perhaps 20 would do. I think we could do with less than 12, perhaps 6 or even 3.

How would you guarantee against a hidden bias?

Can't. But I would hope professional jurors would be less caught up in the sensationalism and celebrity status. It would just be a job.

How would you protect against corruption?

Can't. But in the long run this might come out as with other professions. And of course, it would be a crime.

Would voir dire remain as it is?

I'm thinking it would take up less time.

Would they be paid weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or case by case?

Monthly or at the end of the trial which ever comes first.


Would they be entitled to paid vacation/sick/personal time?

Perhaps, if they were serving on a long trial. In the case of Scott Peterson, I believe there were some days the jury was not in court, they would still be paid. Also, I think I remember a woman going to the dentist.

These are just a few of the questions I have -- there are many more.

Ask away. Of course, many of the answers could vary based on a number of factors. In the Peterson case, there was a change of venue, breaks in the case, etc. The county where the case was needed money from the county where the crime was and that county got help from the state. So who paid the jurors?

Personally, I think this concept creates more problems than we have now but I'd like to hear someone take a shot at answering some of the more troubling questions.

You are probably right but I think it is good to question things which have existed for hundreds of years. Just as people question the Electoral College, term limits for Congress and right to bear arms.

Replies in eye pleasing Magenta.:hat:

[Luke Davis]

So what are you saying Luke? Witnesses fly in and out all the time in this age of "professional witnesses". IIRC, a bill for SP's defense was presented to the state of California. The entire point of moving to RC was because the defense screamed that Modesto was prejudiced. SP hired his LA lawyer. Would your scenario preclude that?

Are professional jurors, in this scenario, in every jurisdiction? I just don't understand how these professional jurors would even begin to work. I have a hard time with "jurors of their peers", but only because my mind can't go deep into killing someone to exact respect.

And we're not derailing anything! :D

I think this "jury of their peers" is often misunderstood. It goes back to the Magna Carta, where royalty were the judges. The people gained the right to be judged by the peerage or in today's venacular...common folk. So, in my opinion peers, are just people who are not appointed by the king, more or less.

:patriot:

[Lili007]

I think this "jury of their peers" is often misunderstood. It goes back to the Magna Carta, where royalty were the judges. The people gained the right to be judged by the peerage or in today's venacular...common folk. So, in my opinion peers, are just people who are not appointed by the king, more or less.

:patriot:

Oh, yes. That's what I think as well.

Edited to add... the Magna Carta has much more to say, and, like any good book, the more you read it, the more you discover, and in some instances the more you read and discover, the more you realise how limited your knowledge or understanding is, on any subject.

Of course, I'm only talking from my point of view.

JMO

[deputydi]

Replies in eye pleasing Magenta.:hat:
I have no problem exploring the idea but don't you think it would create an enormous burden on the individual Counties? Our jurors are paid $9 a day plus mileage. "Professional" implies to me that this would be their job -- their career. Who on earth is going to do this job for $9 a day? Most Counties couldn't afford to pay these people $9, $10 or more an hour. Can you imagine what a financial burden that would be to the taxpayers? Calling in approximately 20 jurors assumes that you have only one trial going on. We have 5 courtrooms and 5 judges with ongoing trials in each one. When the first trial is ended another is waiting to begin. Would you use the same 20 people for all the trials or would you call in a fresh panel?

BTW -- the term "jury of his peers" is not in our Constitution.

[Luke Davis]

I have no problem exploring the idea but don't you think it would create an enormous burden on the individual Counties? Our jurors are paid $9 a day plus mileage. "Professional" implies to me that this would be their job -- their career. Who on earth is going to do this job for $9 a day? Most Counties couldn't afford to pay these people $9, $10 or more an hour. Can you imagine what a financial burden that would be to the taxpayers? Calling in approximately 20 jurors assumes that you have only one trial going on. We have 5 courtrooms and 5 judges with ongoing trials in each one. When the first trial is ended another is waiting to begin. Would you use the same 20 people for all the trials or would you call in a fresh panel?

BTW -- the term "jury of his peers" is not in our Constitution.

I haven't thought this out in detail but I think there would be some trade offs. I was thinking of 20 as a panel for a case. Typically where I live there are 50 on a panel but about 30 show up. For some trials it takes 3 or four panels to get a jury. By calling 20 qualified jurors it would save time.

As it is now, it may take a week or more to pick a jury. How long did it take to pick the Peterson jury? What if that could have been cut to 4 hours?

So, yes the jury would be expensive but possibly much more efficient. Think of a professional lumberjack with a chainsaw instead of 12 volunteers with hatchets.:hat:

Typically, a panel is guided through the process by a deputy. Professional jurors wouldn't need to be guided. The judge might want to give instructions but they wouldn't need to be detailed.

I don't know what the pay would be but I am sure it would vary from state to state. I'm thinking in the area of $150 a day. The available jurors might be retired, students, teachers, etc. People that have other jobs and do this as a fill-in.

:hat:

[Lili007]

I haven't thought this out in detail but I think there would be some trade offs. I was thinking of 20 as a panel for a case. Typically where I live there are 50 on a panel but about 30 show up. For some trials it takes 3 or four panels to get a jury. By calling 20 qualified jurors it would save time.

As it is now, it may take a week or more to pick a jury. How long did it take to pick the Peterson jury? What if that could have been cut to 4 hours?

So, yes the jury would be expensive but possibly much more efficient. Think of a professional lumberjack with a chainsaw instead of 12 volunteers with hatchets.:hat:

Typically, a panel is guided through the process by a deputy. Professional jurors wouldn't need to be guided. The judge might want to give instructions but they wouldn't need to be detailed.

I don't know what the pay would be but I am sure it would vary from state to state. I'm thinking in the area of $150 a day. The available jurors might be retired, students, teachers, etc. People that have other jobs and do this as a fill-in.

:hat:

In the long run, don't you think there's 12 times (at least) more potential for corruption with professional jurors?

JMO :)