Right to a Trial by a Jury of your Peers

One of the things about the American legislative system (I'm not too sure about other systems, though I think they may use the same basic principle) is the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, i.e. people randomly selected from the area you're in. Now, you often hear about what a hassle jury duty is in general, and there's a rather common complaint about jurors who are making judgements on things they aren't qualified to judge (such as medical cases that require very precise and technical descriptions which could be above most Americans) or just plain stupid (a jury that could rule in favor of someone who got injured while robbing a person's house and sued because of it is probably not the best example of human intelligence).

With this in mind, one must wonder, is it really necessary to have a jury of our peers? What if we were to have trained jurors, people who's job is to sit on a jury, and who's training involves practical knowledge in the legal system as well as certain aspects of medicine and science, so as to be prepared for cases presented to them. This would also eliminate much of the advantage a rich person has over a poor person in a lawsuit, the rich person can hire the best lawyer they want, but trained jurors would know how to see past the crap and find the meat of the argument.

What say you all?

Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me and it gets me out of accursed jury duty, but seriously who the hell would want that job?

Well, you'd be paid (It'd more than likely be by the government) to sit in court and watch court cases. I don't think that'd be so bad a gig, really, so long as the pay was halfway decent. The legal system is a fascinating thing, and some trials can be extremely interesting.

I think sitting on a jury helps give you a sense of the reality of the legal system. Of course, I got out of jury duty when summoned because I was away at college. Anyway, I don't think professional jurors are a good idea. How could you prove they would be any less biased than random people anyway?

Not necessarily less biased (although the training would certainly stress that), but more capable of making informed decisions.

Then why don't we just have judges do it?

The one opinion vs. many opinions.

Although now that you mention it, I think the trial by a jury of your peers came into being because they wanted a way to balance the government, thus taking power of the legal system from the government and putting it back into the hands of the people.

Hmm... that is an interesting wrench in the proposal.

Yes, that's the crux of the jury system.

On a related note, the jury for Jackson didn't have any black people on it. If he had been found guilty, how big of a part would that play in appeals and the media?

Only in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman.

Do blacks even consider Jackson to be "one of them" anymore?

I know I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

Do blacks even consider Jackson to be "one of them" anymore?

---

Of course. It's people like Condi Rice and Bill Cosby they disown.