Jury Duty

[jimilee]

I was being honest when I said I thought he was guilty cause he was already in jail, so that helped. Also I have long hair, and US long hair fellows are always getting a bad wrap:P

[DutchMF]

Not only in the US Jimi, here as well.... I've had it happen to me that an old lady, not too stable on her legs anymore, refused to let me help her get of the bus and gave me a look like I came strait from Hell. Thats what long hair and a leather jacket does....

Back to the original topic: Jury duty is something we don't have here, our judicial system is completely different from yours. Of course I know it from the movies, but there you always see exaggerated cases where the jurors are holed up in a hotel for 6 weeks.... I know you guys don't like it, but for me it's an insight in something I'll never experience. Quite interesting!

Paul

[spaceboss]

/Rant mode on/

The jury system is very important, and I have never been convinced that there is a better way to do things, especially in the criminal sphere. Honestly it is the only real check on who the gov. gets to lock up and who they don't.

And no offense meant to the folks in this thread who try to get out of jury duty: But I am always disappointed when reasonable smart people try to get out of jury duty (because unreasonable dolts never do.). It is a civic duty, and unlike an individual vote in an election-a jury will make very real, very consequential decisions for someone's life. Just think about who you would want on your jury if you were facing charges--legit or otherwise. The are plenty of cases that are a waste of time or that cause hardship, but that is a small price to pay to have a democratic criminal justice system. 

The adversary system on the other-hand (which as an attorney I am part of), places the value of skilled advocacy a little too close to the value of the truth.

/Rant mode off/

[DutchMF]

/Rant mode on/

The jury system is very important, and I have never been convinced that there is a better way to do things, especially in the criminal sphere. Honestly it is the only real check on who the gov. gets to lock up and who they don't.

And no offense meant to the folks in this thread who try to get out of jury duty: But I am always disappointed when reasonable smart people try to get out of jury duty (because unreasonable dolts never do.). It is a civic duty, and unlike an individual vote in an election-a jury will make very real, very consequential decisions for someone's life. Just think about who you would want on your jury if you were facing charges--legit or otherwise. The are plenty of cases that are a waste of time or that cause hardship, but that is a small price to pay to have a democratic criminal justice system. 

The adversary system on the other-hand (which as an attorney I am part of), places the value of skilled advocacy a little too close to the value of the truth.

/Rant mode off/

Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....

Paul

[RobA]

...
Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....

Paul

I can see advantages and problems with both systems. One question I have though is that one of the protections a jury system provides is via jury nullification, that must be totally missing from a system that has only professionals involved? The politicization of judicial appointments that occurs here should be enough to point to this being troublesome.

[spaceboss]

Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....

Paul
[/quote]

Well, from my limited knowledge of European (mostly the German) systems: I like that the theatrical (fun) elements of lawyering are downplayed--which levels the playing field for the accused and lowers the temperature of the proceedings.

On the other hand, I am a little worried about how an overly chummy relationship between the judges and lawyers could work against Defendants from politically unpopular groups who have neither a true advocate nor the check of a jury (For example, maybe North-Africans in France). In the US, the good old boys club is bad enough between parties that are ready to kill each other. I can imagine that the lack of friction in the European mode could lead to complacency which can allow an ugly status quo to continue. (On the other hand, European sentences genuinely reflect the more humane belief in rehabilitation.)

In criminal matters especially, a true jury of one's peers, provides for lack a better phrase a "This is bullshit protection" for the accused. Jury nullification is real and important. I actually believe that generally juries are more likely to hold the prosecution (and defense) responsible for meeting their burdens of proof. In the worse case scenario, juries can reflect more of a mob justice or reflect the will of one particularly persuasive juror. But the protections in place, like preemptive strikes and Batson challenges (not allowing one side to strike all jurors of on race or gender) are fairly good.

In other litigation, a jury is less important. I don't know how a jury of lay people (or even judges without specialized backgrounds) can adequately understand and decide complex patent issues, for example.

Do I think that the US system is fair on the whole? No. I think it is biased in favor of those with $$, and is especially hard on criminal accused without $$.

I could write a book.   But I'll stop now.

[DutchMF]

...
Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....

Paul

I can see advantages and problems with both systems. One question I have though is that one of the protections a jury system provides is via jury nullification, that must be totally missing from a system that has only professionals involved? The politicization of judicial appointments that occurs here should be enough to point to this being troublesome.

I have no idea what 'jury nullification' is.... And a lot more questions, but those will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm quite intrigued by this discussion, gives me an insight in your judicial system.

@spaceboss: thanks for your explanation. As mentioned before, I'd like to ask a lot more, but I have to go to sleep right now. I've had a few long (no, really long!) weeks at work. And paintball with my co-workers tomorrow!!! Thanks again,

Paul

[TNblueshawk]

As someone who for 26 years has dealth with attorneys in my line of work, work comp, I've been to many a civil trial that doesn't have a jury. The work comp system in the US is juryless (word?) it is now!

So this jury thing was a first for me personally. Obviously I'm familiar with it as a citizen of 40 some odd years. I have no idea what is best to be honest. I'm too biased as this is all I know. I do believe democracy is best in general vs not so I suppose the jury system in that sense sort of makes sense.

While I've made light of the proceedings, and they deserved it with the rash of BS and lies I had to sit through, as I sat there I was fully aware that I along with 11 others were asked to vote on something that could send a dude to jail. Of course he had been in jail the past year for something else and had 3 more criminal trials to go for other arrests so jail appears to be his home for the time being but nevertheless it was a serious matter that deserved serious attention. I did my best and voted with what I thought was right.

I suppose the difficult part is that no matter whether it is judges or jurors political bias, race etc... can still be a part of it. I'm not much of rehab believer at all. Never have been probably never will be. I'm on the punisher side of things.

The only thing I could say I suppose about the jury system is I don't like that it has to be 12-0. Justice may not be served. What should it be? Either 11-1 and at most 10-2. If you truly have an idiot, a racist, or someone who truly is not there with a good heart and mind then someone gets off who shouldn't have or doesn't get off. We had one, what I would call at best, someone who on a good day can tie both her shoes. I won't go into detail but if on another case her "situation" was the difference between justice and not, i.e. she is the one in an 11-1 vote I can assure you justice was not served per our laws.

But, a judicial overhaul is sorely needed in the US and the jury thing is way down on my list of what I'd overhaul I know that for sure.

Sorry to ramble.

Just saw RobA's post. Yeah the political apointments in and of itself is enough to say the jury system is better. I deal with this in rural counties in Tennessee on my civil cases where the judges are voted into office and I can assure you there is no "fair trial" going on. No one can argue otherwise no matter what side you are on. However, both plaintiff and defense sort of laugh about it together - how biased the judges are.

In fact, under TN work comp law the employer (or insurance company) is allowed to "jump sue" the employee. Why would I do this? Because you want to be able to pick the courtroom i.e. the judge who might give us a fair shot. If we don't there is a 100% chance we will lose, period end of story. Fair? I think not. So it forces me as the employer to actually sue our employees "first". Any system that encourages that has some serious flaws.

Political appointments, or lack there of, would be one of my many changes in our judicial system.