The jurors who convicted would have achieved so wrongly. Or, they might have, given all the information provided on the time, made the superb achieveable decision. perhaps the fault became certainly with the defendant's unique criminal expert. a especially intelligent person (regardless of you propose by way of that) can in simple terms as certainly convict somebody falsely, fairly without DNA information. the subject isn't with the juries, consistent with se, it rather is with the entire antagonistic gadget of justice. Now, I have not any theory a thank you to repair that, yet there's a flaw interior the assumption of justice being a count of a contest, whilst the stakes are so extreme. finally, do you rather propose to assert some thing as prejudices as "in the experience that your IQ isn't extreme adequate, you are able to not be a juror?" What if the defendant himself has a low IQ--isn't that now not a jury of his friends? Is that any distinctive than asserting that only somebody of race X could be a juror? i'm all in desire of putting the main proper human beings achieveable in positions of skill, yet is it precise to eliminate the activity and repsonsibility of a citizen to pwerform jury accountability because of the fact they weren't given as sturdy an training?
The jury system is a good system ,if people can afford to pay for their own defense it would be better .. Other wise you can get as much justice as your money can buy ! If you are broke,you gonna do some time !
The jury system itself is fair. The judges and prosecutors are what makes it flawed. Jury nullification is one of the most powerful tools we as citizens have. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that the defense can not instruct the jurors of their right to nullify. It is your right, but they don't want you to know.
Jury of your peers, people like you rather than just a judge or kangeroo court.
It may not be perfect but nothing else comes close.It has been in England (ours is copies from) for many hundreds of years.
Lastly in certain trials one can have a trial by judge instead of jury, this occurs more often when only the law is involved, not breaking it, but the understanding of it.
I've been on 4 juries in my life; foreman on two. Two cases were civil cases and two cases were criminal cases. In all four cases we did our level best to be fair. I suppose there are some juries that are not fair such as the O.J. Simpson jury but I would hope that in lower profile cases such as the ones I was on my fellow citizens would perform as we did with conscientious fairness.
It's the best there is But, lawyers will drag things out making preparation. They jury select with an aloof attitude. Those twelve are chosen by the registrar but should be the knowledgeable part of our society rather than from "all walks."
Comments
The jurors who convicted would have achieved so wrongly. Or, they might have, given all the information provided on the time, made the superb achieveable decision. perhaps the fault became certainly with the defendant's unique criminal expert. a especially intelligent person (regardless of you propose by way of that) can in simple terms as certainly convict somebody falsely, fairly without DNA information. the subject isn't with the juries, consistent with se, it rather is with the entire antagonistic gadget of justice. Now, I have not any theory a thank you to repair that, yet there's a flaw interior the assumption of justice being a count of a contest, whilst the stakes are so extreme. finally, do you rather propose to assert some thing as prejudices as "in the experience that your IQ isn't extreme adequate, you are able to not be a juror?" What if the defendant himself has a low IQ--isn't that now not a jury of his friends? Is that any distinctive than asserting that only somebody of race X could be a juror? i'm all in desire of putting the main proper human beings achieveable in positions of skill, yet is it precise to eliminate the activity and repsonsibility of a citizen to pwerform jury accountability because of the fact they weren't given as sturdy an training?
The jury system is a good system ,if people can afford to pay for their own defense it would be better .. Other wise you can get as much justice as your money can buy ! If you are broke,you gonna do some time !
The jury system itself is fair. The judges and prosecutors are what makes it flawed. Jury nullification is one of the most powerful tools we as citizens have. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that the defense can not instruct the jurors of their right to nullify. It is your right, but they don't want you to know.
Jury of your peers, people like you rather than just a judge or kangeroo court.
It may not be perfect but nothing else comes close.It has been in England (ours is copies from) for many hundreds of years.
Lastly in certain trials one can have a trial by judge instead of jury, this occurs more often when only the law is involved, not breaking it, but the understanding of it.
I've been on 4 juries in my life; foreman on two. Two cases were civil cases and two cases were criminal cases. In all four cases we did our level best to be fair. I suppose there are some juries that are not fair such as the O.J. Simpson jury but I would hope that in lower profile cases such as the ones I was on my fellow citizens would perform as we did with conscientious fairness.
It's the best there is But, lawyers will drag things out making preparation. They jury select with an aloof attitude. Those twelve are chosen by the registrar but should be the knowledgeable part of our society rather than from "all walks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror