US legal types - why do you have a jury?

[JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq]

To expand on what Quartz mentions above, a jury is a final defense against a corrupt government.

In many small jurisdictions, the system consists of a group of individuals who work together every day and often socialize on a personal level - the judge goes fishing with the DA, the chief of police has regular lunches with a public defender, etc. They all get together for social events. It becomes a “boy’s club” of sorts. They work as a unit - scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

(Disclaimer: I don’t intend to say that all jurisdictions work as above, but it happens.)

One day you end up in a misunderstanding with a member of the “boy’s club”, or maybe with a friend or relative of a member. Bogus charges are filed, and you are railroaded through the system. The game is stacked against you, and you have no conceivable way to beat the charges and remain a free man… except for the existence of a jury.

In theory, a jury is incorruptable (unless you argue that a particular microcosm of society is corrupt, such as instances of racist juries in mid-20th-century southern U.S.) A jury of your peers has the power to see through an unjust prosecution and make a proper verdict. Without a jury, you are at the mercy of the system.

Obviously, the above is a completely made-up example, but the truth is that similar instances have occurred. Take the recent case of a Pennsylvania judge who sentenced hundreds of kids to juvenile detention for things as trivial as shoplifting. Many of these kids were first-time offenders who should have been given a slap on the wrist and returned to their normal lives. Instead they were locked up.

Well, guess what? The judge was financially involved with the juvenile detention center. Every conviction was money in his pocket. These kids’ lives were substantially impacted, possibly ruined, due to the corruption of the system. Had they gone to a jury trial, this would have never been possible.

(Some of the details of the above may be innaccurate as I’m too lazy to gather a cite, but the point stands that a jury provides a much-needed check against inappropriate convictions.)

Juries are pro-freedom. They are instructed to rule based on the notion of reasonable doubt. They may not always make the best decisions, and many guilty men have walked free as a result of their ineptitude. However, on the flip side, many innocent men have maintained their freedom due to the protections offered by a jury trial. I’m probably butchering the quote, but as the saying goes, “it’s better to let 100 guilty men walk free than to imprison one innocent man.”

[BlinkingDuck]

@Pitchmeister

Some of the comments in this thread made me think about the practice of jury trials. You’re basically putting the fate of the defendant in the hands of a group of people who don’t have (and from the look of it, must not have) any legal knowledge, and you end up calling that fact, as some posters in that thread did.

Also, from what I’ve seen on different shows, the whole deal about “The jury will disregard the witness’s last statement” remains mysterious to me. Why does the jury have to be protected against anything that happens in a court room?

I profess profound ignorance of the inner workings of the US system, and what I do know I learned from The Wire and such, so I may be way off on some of my assertions. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this convoluted process is better than a team of three judges, all of whom have studied the law for all their lives, determining guilt and punishment based on “fact” and other circumstances, which apparently the jury is forbidden to take into account.

Mods, not sure if this borders GQ or even GD territory, please move as you see fit.

Thank you!

I have a lawyer friend who HATES juries. He is of the firm belief that there should be ‘professional jurors’ (people who’s job it is to be full time jurors). His reasoning is that the subtlety of the Law is lost on dopes.

My response to that is NO! Run of the mill average Joes on a jury is what keeps lawyers grounded. If your argument is so subtle that you can’t communicate it to a layman…it is too complicated. The average Joe jurors help keep the courts/lawyers from flying off into lala land.

I don’t know who’s right

{and +1 to the defense against corrupt government in the post above}

[friedo]

@BlinkingDuck

I have a lawyer friend who HATES juries. He is of the firm belief that there should be ‘professional jurors’ (people who’s job it is to be full time jurors). His reasoning is that the subtlety of the Law is lost on dopes.

I think where juries get messed up with this kind of thing is with their jury instructions – understanding the precise differences between manslaughter and murder, for instance, and deciding which applies can be difficult even for a trained lawyer.

But your friend should probably not be making actual legal arguments to the jury. That’s not what they’re for.

[Leon497]

Professional juries do make good sense and would be a good start toward a better system. It will never happen because they would recognize lawyer lies used over and over so the lawyers always want the dumbest, stupidest people around so they will be believed as authorities instead of the paid liars they are. Lawyers will always seek to block any improvements because they want deceit and trickery while everyone else wants justice.

Probably the only way to fix the system would be elected supreme court judges, state and federal, with say 12 or 16 year terms and no re-election, instead they could become appellate judges after if they desired to remain, that would gradually let the justice seeking public change the system.

[pravnik]

@Leon497

Professional juries do make good sense and would be a good start toward a better system. It will never happen because they would recognize lawyer lies used over and over so the lawyers always want the dumbest, stupidest people around so they will be believed as authorities instead of the paid liars they are. Lawyers will always seek to block any improvements because they want deceit and trickery while everyone else wants justice.

That’s interesting. Can you give us some examples?

[pravnik]

@Leon497

It is indeed a sick system with jury of today. In the 1700’s it may have been as good as could be done in absence of all the science we now have. But why do we keep it? We would not want medical methods from the 1700’s nor to eat in a place that used the 1700’s sanitation and food prep methods would we? We have lie detectors that work now, we have drugs that can reveal not only the truth, but a list of who all else was involved in a crime, and we will not use it. Everyone pretends we can’t do any better than guessing.

All this because lawyers want to be able to rip off people by keeping the 1700 system and having 12 people guess. Would you want medical care just guessed at in the same way, they did that in the 1700’s. Leaches anyone? Well in this case the leaches are the lawyers. They will do anything to keep the truth from coming out. Excluding evidence is one of the worst abuses of justice ever thought up by legal types.

And are you related to Silverstreak Wonder, by any chance?

[Procrustus]

@Leon497

Professional juries do make good sense and would be a good start toward a better system. It will never happen because they would recognize lawyer lies used over and over so the lawyers always want the dumbest, stupidest people around so they will be believed as authorities instead of the paid liars they are. Lawyers will always seek to block any improvements because they want deceit and trickery while everyone else wants justice.

Wow. that’s offensive. I can’t speak for other lawyers, but I want the smartest jurors possible on my cases. If I’ve spent years of my time and tens of thousands of dollars putting together a case, it’s because I believe justice is on my side and I deserve to win the case I don’t need to put anything over on anyone, I need jurors to understand what everyone is saying, who can see through the other side’s B.S., and reach the correct decision.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Procrustus

That’s not what I meant. I’ve served as a judge, and I’ve argued numerous cases to juries and to judges. My point is that the most odd ball decisions I’ve seen have been judges, not juries. Again, the majority of decisions by judges and juries are rational. A few (very few) judges seem to have serious bias or incompetence, which you don’t see in a group of 8 to 12 citizens. (the group dynamics must level things out a bit).

This is my experience too. Juries take their duties very seriously, or at least most of the jurors do. Judges just see too much and sometimes have biases. They do the strangest damn things. Justice Scalia seems to seriously think that women are not subject to equal protection of the laws. That is just fucking bizarre.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Leon497

It will never happen because they would recognize lawyer lies used over and over so the lawyers always want the dumbest, stupidest people around so they will be believed as authorities instead of the paid liars they are. Lawyers will always seek to block any improvements because they want deceit and trickery while everyone else wants justice.

You do realize that all cases involve two lawyers in opposition to each other, right? You realize that they want the other side to lose, right? And that only one of them wins in the end? If you realize that it’s a zero-sum game, how can lawyers possibly take advantage of a stupid jury? That makes no sense whatsoever. That’s like saying that baseball players want the MLB to hire blind umpires- it only benefits if they’re calling it your way, of which you have no guarantee.

Then again, you think that there’s such a thing as a “lie detector” outside of science fiction, so I’m not really inclined to respect your opinions anyway.

[Pitchmeister]

Thanks to anyone who responded! While I don’t really agree with all the points made, I can certainly better understand the mindset now.

@JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq

Take the recent case of a Pennsylvania judge who sentenced hundreds of kids to juvenile detention for things as trivial as shoplifting. Many of these kids were first-time offenders who should have been given a slap on the wrist and returned to their normal lives. Instead they were locked up.

Well, guess what? The judge was financially involved with the juvenile detention center. Every conviction was money in his pocket. These kids’ lives were substantially impacted, possibly ruined, due to the corruption of the system. Had they gone to a jury trial, this would have never been possible.

From the thread I linked to in the OP I gathered that jurors are not supposed to know the possible penalties. In those trials, the defendants were supposedly guilty of shoplifting, so why would I as a juror reach the conclusion “not guilty”? After all, how can I know the judge is going to impose a totally ridiculous sentence?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Procrustus

Juries are actually pretty good at achieving rough justice. They generally take their responsibilities seriously, and–as a group–usually act rationally. There are, of course, exceptions. Same is true of judges. Some are great, many good, some awful. I’ve had juries do things that I didn’t like, but rarely have I seen them make a decision that didn’t make any sense. I can’t say the same for judges.

IANAL, but around these parts I have to suspect that the average attentiveness and overall competence of jurors is on the rise, simply because the judges have become much more strict with regard to excusing people from service. You usually can’t get out just by saying you’ve got a deadline to meet. Also, IIRC the attorneys are allowed fewer peremptory exclusions than formerly, so there are more people on the panels who are highly educated and possibly professional practitioners (except lawyers, of course).

I sometimes think that the intelligence and rationality of a large group, like a television viewing audience, decreases in proportion to the size of the audience. But small groups deliberating IRL, like juries, can be productive. It’s unlikely that you’re going to get twelve wackos or twelve people who have a particular axe to grind; if you do get a couple, the others can bring them around in the course of deliberations.

[JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq]

@Pitchmeister

From the thread I linked to in the OP I gathered that jurors are not supposed to know the possible penalties. In those trials, the defendants were supposedly guilty of shoplifting, so why would I as a juror reach the conclusion “not guilty”? After all, how can I know the judge is going to impose a totally ridiculous sentence?

I knew I was going to get caught for my laziness.

You are correct that my logic was faulty in that, for reasons you have stated, a jury trial would not have helped in the sentencing stage of the kids in PA. I was trying to think of a specific case of judicial system corruption, and this particular case was the first to come to mind. Unfortunately, it doesn’t illustrate my point regarding protections offered by jury trials.

If anyone is curious of some of the details of this case of corruption:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges_1_detention-judges-number-of-juvenile-offenders?_s=PM:CRIME

It appears that in most of the cases, the kids (or more likely the parents) didn’t feel the need to have an attorney present and ended up taking plea deals with the thought that they would be sentenced reasonably. They ended up getting screwed.

Digging a little further into things, I found out that juveniles in PA don’t even have a right to a jury trial. :smack: McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Reversed Trend - Jury, Trial, Court, and Juvenile - JRank Articles Next time I’ll find a better example when trying to prove a point.

Nevertheless, my statement still stands that juries exist in part to stave off government corruption.

[BigT]

@JimboJamesJimmersonIII_Esq

Digging a little further into things, I found out that juveniles in PA don’t even have a right to a jury trial. :smack: McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Reversed Trend - Jury, Trial, Court, and Juvenile - JRank Articles Next time I’ll find a better example when trying to prove a point.

I thought that was what you were arguing was the problem. Without the right to a jury trial, judges get to make all the decisions.

And that case is actually one of the reasons I think the jury should know the punishment. It encourages the judge to make reasonable sentences. If you want jurors to be triers of fact only, then you need some other random body to keep the judge from obviously unfair sentencing. It’s not like the judge is actually using the law, other than to know the minimum and maximum–no one needs legal training to do that.

[Quartz]

WRT professional juries, I most certainly don’t want them, and I don’t think they’d work anyway. It’s basically a problem of conflict of interest. That said, I don’t have a problem with restricting the composition of a jury on grounds of intelligence or professional knowledge: “We need degree-educated people” or “We need jurors who understand accounting.”

[Northern_Piper]

@Procrustus

That’s not what I meant. I’ve served as a judge, and I’ve argued numerous cases to juries and to judges. My point is that the most odd ball decisions I’ve seen have been judges, not juries. Again, the majority of decisions by judges and juries are rational. A few (very few) judges seem to have serious bias or incompetence, which you don’t see in a group of 8 to 12 citizens. (the group dynamics must level things out a bit).

I once heard Brian Dickson, at that time Chief Justice of Canada, talking about this issue. He said that in his years as a trial judge, he never once had a jury verdict that he thought was wrong. He was firmly convinced that the jury system was a very effective, fair way to determine cases.

[Susanann]

@friedo

Finally there is the controversial issue of nullification. A jury may decide that the facts of the case indisputably prove that the defendant is guilty. But they don’t like the law under which he was convicted and decide to find him not guilty anyway. This serves as a final check on government power in criminal prosecutions. (And it’s worth noting that the only people who argue vociferously against this practice, as rare as it is, are lawyers.)
c.

+1

Yep!** Jury Nullification** is the best check against a government out of control. I would never convict a defendant if I thought the law was unconstitutional, or if I think the prosecution/police are lying about anything. 3 judges would not do that. Jury nullification is a veto power that can override the law, override the legislature, override the governor.

I cant do a cite, but “I heard” that there were so many jury nullifications when the government tried to prosecute people for drinking during Prohibition, that the government gave up trying to prosecute ordinary folks.

Bottom line: The Jury nullification “option” is the main reason/incentive for me to serve on juries.

[Procrustus]

@Susanann

+1

Yep!** Jury Nullification** is the best check against a government out of control. I would never convict a defendant if I thought the law was unconstitutional, or if I think the prosecution/police are lying about anything. 3 judges would not do that. Jury nullification is a veto power that can override the law, override the legislature, override the governor.

I cant do a cite, but “I heard” that there were so many jury nullifications when the government tried to prosecute people for drinking during Prohibition, that the government gave up trying to prosecute ordinary folks.

Bottom line: The Jury nullification “option” is the main reason/incentive for me to serve on juries.

I might behave the same way as you. I sure would think twice (or more) before I voted to convict someone of a marijuana crime. But the flip side is the juries that wouldn’t convict a white man for a crime against a black man.

[friedo]

@Procrustus

I might behave the same way as you. I sure would think twice (or more) before I voted to convict someone of a marijuana crime. But the flip side is the juries that wouldn’t convict a white man for a crime against a black man.

It’s been known to happen. That’s a major disadvantage of nullification. You have to have faith that your jury is not composed of drooling rednecks.

[Guinastasia]

Question – is there often evidence that WOULD incriminate the defendent, but for one reason or another, excluded? And would it be public knowledge? (For example, let’s say O.J. made a full confession, but it was obtained without being read his Miranda rights – would the general public ever learn of it? Or would it just be kept from the jury?)

(Note: most of my knowledge comes from watching Law & Order)

[Procrustus]

@Guinastasia

Question – is there often evidence that WOULD incriminate the defendent, but for one reason or another, excluded? And would it be public knowledge? (For example, let’s say O.J. made a full confession, but it was obtained without being read his Miranda rights – would the general public ever learn of it? Or would it just be kept from the jury?)

(Note: most of my knowledge comes from watching Law & Order)

There is something excluded in almost every case. Usually something relatively minor, like a remote and unrelated conviction. Sometimes it is a confession of some sort (although that’s rare…these days it’s pretty hard to get a confession excluded). Really damning evidence isn’t excluded very often. When it happens (i.e., suppression of drugs seized illegally) the case often folds and there is no trial.