Should the US government create professional jurors?

[Braincase]

Can objectivity be taught? Can we create a class of professional jurors that are trained to be perfect witnesses ala "Stranger in a Strange Land"? I think it can be done. What do you think?

[jspchief]

Sounds like a horrible idea.

[Braincase]

Sounds like a horrible idea.

... said the guy who thinks that the OJ Simpson trial was spot on... :p

[mikey23545]

Absolutely...

Take a good look around you next time you're standing on a street corner and imagine yourself with your fate hanging in the balance and the drooling, slack-jawed idiots you see in the jury box...

[Dayze]

in light of my current situation, I think it's a brilliant idea.

ROFL

[teedubya]

my goodness... sure its a good idea, lets have them paid for by the same people who contribute to our presidential candidates. As if the land isnt corrupt enough, lets throw some gas on the fire.

heh.


horrible idea.


I do think you should have to take an I.Q. test, though.

[mikey23545]

my goodness... sure its a good idea, lets have them paid for by the same people who contribute to our presidential candidates. As if the land isnt corrupt enough, lets throw some gas on the fire.

heh.


horrible idea.

How retarded.

I guess we better quit using professional judges and lawyers as well....

[jspchief]

Considering judges are basically professional jurors, and time after time they make f*cked up biased decisions, I don't think you could find anyone that actually could do it properly.

[Earthling]

To be a professional juror, one would have to be fairly smart. Only a moron would apply for that job so you'd have to throw out their applications.

[teedubya]

How retarded.

I guess we better quit using professional judges and lawyers as well....


put your blinders back on. Its all good. However, if your views were instituted... we would be ****ed. You are too trusting.

[Dayze]

anytime the government or big corporations are in charge of anything, they're bound to be a target for corruption/collusion, etc. Just look at our congress, judges, federal programs, oil......I'm resigned to the fact the 'election process' is a dog and pony show.

I do think there should be an entrance criteria for being a juror....not sure what that would be however.

[yeti]

The question is can you find truly objective teachers?

[crossbow]

anytime the government or big corporations are in charge of anything, they're bound to be a target for corruption/collusion, etc. Just look at our congress, judges, federal programs, oil......I'm resigned to the fact the 'election process' is a dog and pony show.

I do think there should be an entrance criteria for being a juror....not sure what that would be however.

How about starting off with some basic civics knowledge. Most of the publicly schooled people who are victoms of "outcome based" education are lucky if they can compose a simple sentance, much less sit in judgement over a person with his life in their hands. Another requirement would be to forbid California to hold any trials. These people can't convict the cops who pounded Rodney King even when it was shown on video. Left coast morons.

When I lived in Illinois, the cops traced tainted Holloween candy to a house. We are talking razor blades in apples. They accidentally dropped their nightsticks on those guys' heads (three dozen times) while escorting them to the squad car. I am sure it wasn't intentional and the neighbors watching from the front lawn didn't actualy witnessed it so no charges against the cops were ever made. Hey, come to think of it, the tainted candy idea died out quickly after that event...go figure.

[Frazod]

The armed forces have professional jurors - jurors who are selected to participate in courts-martial by the convening authority.

The convening authority is the accused's commanding officer. The same guy who wants to see the accused get convicted and go to jail.

That tends to work out really well - for the prosecution. Sucks to be the defense, though.

I think I'd rather try my luck with 12 drooling civilian morons.

[Skip Towne]

The armed forces have professional jurors - jurors who are selected to participate in courts-martial by the convening authority.

The convening authority is the accused's commanding officer. The same guy who wants to see the accused get convicted and go to jail.

That tends to work out really well - for the prosecution. Sucks to be the defense, though.

I think I'd rather try my luck with 12 drooling civilian morons.
And don't they use junior officers who are not lawyers for defense attorneys? They used to.

[Frazod]

And don't they use junior officers who are not lawyers for defense attorneys? They used to.

No, they use real lawyers. Fresh out of law school. The rookies almost always start in the defense. Only after they gain lots of experience (and show talent and promise) do they move on to the prosecution.

In the three years I was stationed at the Legal Service Office in Great Lakes, we had two acquittals out of hundreds of trials. Basically, if you get to the level of a court-martial, you're f#cked. That's the way they like it.

[teedubya]

No, they use real lawyers. Fresh out of law school. The rookies almost always start in the defense. Only after they gain lots of experience (and show talent and promise) do they move on to the prosecution.

In the three years I was stationed at the Legal Service Office in Great Lakes, we had two acquittals out of hundreds of trials. Basically, if you get to the level of a court-martial, you're f#cked. That's the way they like it.

but no, mikey90210 says that it is a good idea... it must be so.

[trndobrd]

No, they use real lawyers. Fresh out of law school. The rookies almost always start in the defense. Only after they gain lots of experience (and show talent and promise) do they move on to the prosecution.

In the three years I was stationed at the Legal Service Office in Great Lakes, we had two acquittals out of hundreds of trials. Basically, if you get to the level of a court-martial, you're f#cked. That's the way they like it.


Interesting take, but you are missing three points:

1) The officers and NCOs selected for jury duty are not "professionals" they are simply the unlucky few that are pulled away from their normal duties to go sit and listen to a trial for a few days.

2) The vast majority of cases never make it to the CM level because the UCMJ has a built in plea-bargain system. Furthermore, the 'judge' and 'convening authority' are not the same person. The chief judge/magistrate (person running the trial) is not in the same chain of command of the convening authority. Neither is defense counsel.

3) Two acquittals out of hundreds of trials is consistent with the civilian criminal justice system where over 95% of trials end in a guilty verdict.

[patteeu]

Sounds like a horrible idea.

Ditto. I suspect that a professional jury would be an even more reliable rubber stamp for the prosecution than we already have.

[Frazod]

Interesting take, but you are missing three points:

1) The officers and NCOs selected for jury duty are not "professionals" they are simply the unlucky few that are pulled away from their normal duties to go sit and listen to a trial for a few days.

2) The vast majority of cases never make it to the CM level because the UCMJ has a built in plea-bargain system. Furthermore, the 'judge' and 'convening authority' are not the same person. The chief judge/magistrate (person running the trial) is not in the same chain of command of the convening authority. Neither is defense counsel.

3) Two acquittals out of hundreds of trials is consistent with the civilian criminal justice system where over 95% of trials end in a guilty verdict.

1) The officers and NCOs selected as members are basically hard-asses. They are assigned to various panels, and tend to be selected over and over. The CO doesn't select a specific panel for a specific trial, but he does select the members for all the panels, and one of them will be used. And he sure as hell isn't going to appoint bleeding hearts, chaplains or open-minded folks as members.

2) Yes, I know most infractions are dealt with at lower levels - non-judicial punishment (called captain's mast in the Navy), a summary court-martial or an administrative discharge board. Special courts-martials and general courts-martial count as real life convictions (misdemeanor and felony, respectively) and stay on the offender's permanent record after he is booted. Those were the only ones I dealt with at my level (the YOU'RE SCREWED level). And I never said the judge was the convening authority (duh - trust me, I know how this shit works). The convening authority is the commanding officer, the person who convenes the court and presses charges. Not that it matters much, since military judges are notorious hard-asses. If they weren't, they wouldn't be military judges. The judges I worked with struck down defense motions with zealous glee - it was almost like having two prosecutors in court. And yes, the accused can strike a deal and plead guilty. That happened frequently. Sometimes they turn down the deals, generally to dire results. I once saw an LSD dealer turn down a deal for 18 months, only to get convicted and sentenced to 20 years at trial. Sucked to be him.

3) Two out of hundreds is far less than 5%. Miltary courts are deeply stacked against the accused - far more so that civilian courts. The underlying purpose of military justice isn't justice - it's discipline.

[teedubya]

The fact that these jurors dont know each other, helps them be more impartial. If Phil, Joe, Louanda, and Gilbert know each other for a long time, it would be easier to coherse someones point of view on something...

Plus if Phil and Joe are permanent jurors, how will anyone in St Joe get any fireworks, and Phil wouldnt have all that time to surf CP...

its a horrible Idea, I tell you... think of the kids who need fireworks, why dontcha?

GAWH!

[Simplex3]

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite comedian quotes. Wish I could remember who said it.

"Do you really want to be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty?"

I have to think if I was guilty I'd want a jury trial, but if I was innocent I might just go with the judge. Hell, it's almost no-win.

[trndobrd]

1) The officers and NCOs selected as members are basically hard-asses. They are assigned to various panels, and tend to be selected over and over. The CO doesn't select a specific panel for a specific trial, but he does select the members for all the panels, and one of them will be used. And he sure as hell isn't going to appoint bleeding hearts, chaplains or open-minded folks as members.

2) Yes, I know most infractions are dealt with at lower levels - non-judicial punishment (called captain's mast in the Navy), a summary court-martial or an administrative discharge board. Special courts-martials and general courts-martial count as real life convictions (misdemeanor and felony, respectively) and stay on the offender's permanent record after he is booted. Those were the only ones I dealt with at my level (the YOU'RE SCREWED level). And I never said the judge was the convening authority (duh - trust me, I know how this shit works). The convening authority is the commanding officer, the person who convenes the court and presses charges. Not that it matters much, since military judges are notorious hard-asses. If they weren't, they wouldn't be military judges. The judges I worked with struck down defense motions with zealous glee - it was almost like having two prosecutors in court. And yes, the accused can strike a deal and plead guilty. That happened frequently. Sometimes they turn down the deals, generally to dire results. I once saw an LSD dealer turn down a deal for 18 months, only to get convicted and sentenced to 20 years at trial. Sucked to be him.

3) Two out of hundreds is far less than 5%. Miltary courts are deeply stacked against the accused - far more so that civilian courts. The underlying purpose of military justice isn't justice - it's discipline.


From 1997-2000 the Air Force had a 94% conviction rate, Army a 92.5% conviction rate, Navy 96.7% and the Coast Guard was highest with 97.1%. http://www.militaryinjustice.org/Documents/UCMJStats.PDF

Which seems to be in line with the conviction rate for trials in civilian courts. The military court system, however, does not have as much of a problem with over reaching prosecutors as the civilian system does.

If you don't think civilian judges enjoy striking down defense motions, try again. They love it. You want to see a tough judge, try arguing a motion to suppress before a judge in an election year, especially if his opponent has accused him of being "soft on crime".

The consequences of not taking a plea in the military system are severe. In the Federal Courts it's even worse (98% conviction rate in drug cases) because there is a penalty during sentencing for refusing to take responsibility for the crime, that is to say, taking the case to trial.

I would also suggest that, on the whole, the officers and NCOs that are selected (as an additional duty) to serve on a CM panel are much more capable and take their role much more seriously than the average juror in a civilian courtroom. It might be a hardnosed collection of jurors, but at least they won't be making decisions based on counsel's tie. Just my gut feeling.

[OldTownChief]

How retarded.

I guess we better quit using professional judges and lawyers as well....


ROFL

[Rausch]

Absolutely...

Take a good look around you next time you're standing on a street corner and imagine yourself with your fate hanging in the balance and the drooling, slack-jawed idiots you see in the jury box...

That ain't no $#it...

[OldTownChief]

We should let Nancy Grace on Court TV just tell the judge whos guilty.

[OldTownChief]

We should let Nancy Grace on Court TV just tell the judge whos guilty.

MJ would be burning in hell by now.

[Rausch]

We should let Nancy Grace on Court TV just tell the judge whos guilty.

She's not that convincing IMHO. And kinda' snooty.

I vote for R. Lee Ermey...

[OldTownChief]

She's not that convincing IMHO. And kinda' snooty.

I vote for R. Lee Ermey...


She's very snooty, and a damn fine piece of ass. R. Lee would have never had to stand up.

[Taco John]

This idea makes the baby Jesus cry...

I can only imagine an "America" with professional politicians AND professional jurors... The Framers would be putting the Cirque du Soliel to shame in their graves...

[OldTownChief]

This idea makes the baby Jesus cry...

I can only imagine an "America" with professional politicians AND professional jurors... The Framers would be putting the Cirque du Soliel to shame in their graves...


I doubt it makes Jesus cry but if you don't like it take your fat, ugly, ass, back to Mexico.

[Rausch]

The Framers would be putting the Cirque du Soliel to shame in their graves...

That's neg rep for using frog-speak.

I can only imagine an "America" with professional politicians AND professional jurors...

The iron-e is in not seeing it right now...

[Bob Dole]

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite comedian quotes. Wish I could remember who said it.

"Do you really want to be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty?"

I have to think if I was guilty I'd want a jury trial, but if I was innocent I might just go with the judge. Hell, it's almost no-win.
No-win?

Then you have too few liquid assets.

[Braincase]

Just out of curiousity, how many of you have read "Stranger in a Strange Land"? In the book, one of the leads is a fellow named Jubal Harshaw, and one of his assistants is a "True Witness", trained to be a jurist. She is trained to speak the truth about what she sees, and make no assumptions about the unseen. I thought it was a novel idea when I read it.

Personally, I think it could be done, but a lot of training would have to be done, then additional issues would have to be addresed, such as privacy and security issues for the jurists.

[htismaqe]

Having professional jurors would not only be unconstitutional, but it would open up all kinds of possibilities for bribery and deceit. It's a bad idea.

However, there needs to be a better system. Perhaps they need to start making people serve jury duty. As it is, the people that end up sitting on a jury are the ones that are too stupid to get out of jury duty, so juries are made up of people that are well below "average".

[trndobrd]

Just out of curiousity, how many of you have read "Stranger in a Strange Land"? In the book, one of the leads is a fellow named Jubal Harshaw, and one of his assistants is a "True Witness", trained to be a jurist. She is trained to speak the truth about what she sees, and make no assumptions about the unseen. I thought it was a novel idea when I read it.

Personally, I think it could be done, but a lot of training would have to be done, then additional issues would have to be addresed, such as privacy and security issues for the jurists.


Yeah, but I think RH just put her in there as a way to demonstrate the assumptions necessary in organized religion. RH had lots of good ideas, like a military requirement for full citizenship and voting rights and corporate marriage.

[patteeu]

Just out of curiousity, how many of you have read "Stranger in a Strange Land"? In the book, one of the leads is a fellow named Jubal Harshaw, and one of his assistants is a "True Witness", trained to be a jurist. She is trained to speak the truth about what she sees, and make no assumptions about the unseen. I thought it was a novel idea when I read it.

Personally, I think it could be done, but a lot of training would have to be done, then additional issues would have to be addresed, such as privacy and security issues for the jurists.

I've read it. I remember that I liked the book, but I don't really remember much about it.

People already have the ability to waive trial by jury and get a trial in front of a professional jurist who is dutybound to be impartial. It's a trial by judge.