I've gotten another jury summons

[Lorizael]

Human juries are important. The ability for juries to say "well technically according to the law they are guilty but we'll find them innocent because the law is bull****" is a great tool for progress.

My guess is that happens a lot less frequently than, say, a juror trusting a witness' testimony because the witness looks like someone the juror knows.

[MikeH]

I am just posting Poly style.

It needs jury selection changed for sure it's totally stupid for either side to have a say in picking a jury.

[MikeH]

My guess is that happens a lot less frequently than, say, a juror trusting a witness' testimony because the witness looks like someone the juror knows.

They'd have to convince everyone else.

[rah]

I am just posting Poly style.

It needs jury selection changed for sure it's totally stupid for either side to have a say in picking a jury.

While I would normally agree with this, I have seen cases where it made sense.
In a case to decide how much an insurance company would be paying a victim it made sense for me to be excluded from the jury because I was working for an insurance company.
There are many obvious biases that should be considered.

But I do agree that they go overboard when defense lawyers are trying to cherry pick a favorable jury but to remove that totally isn't the answer.

But the type of reasons for exclusion need to be limited. The no question asked ones that usually are used to race or sex bias a jury should be excluded. The judge should be able to rule on every proposed exclusion.

[Lorizael]

They'd have to convince everyone else.

Yes, but that's just one of many ways in which a jury's impartiality can be compromised.

Take a look at something like this.

[kentonio]

I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with HC here. Juries are very much swayed by the wrong kinds of evidence.

That's ok, even smart people are allowed to be utterly wrong from time to time.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think juries can be a good system. I don't know how it works in the UK so I won't comment on it, but in the US it no longer does anything to protect the rights of the defendant. It basically has to do with the jury selection process. There was a time when "jury of your peers" meant people who actually knew you and had a preconception of your character--that was the whole point. These days, the exact opposite is true.

[kentonio]

I think juries can be a good system. I don't know how it works in the UK so I won't comment on it, but in the US it no longer does anything to protect the rights of the defendant. It basically has to do with the jury selection process. There was a time when "jury of your peers" meant people who actually knew you and had a preconception of your character--that was the whole point. These days, the exact opposite is true.

No, that was not the whole point. The whole point was to ensure that you were being judged by a jury of your peers, rather than by the state or ruler who could then unduly punish anyone that displeased then with impunity. You can see exactly this kind of thing still happening in certain states who do not have jury trials. It is however heartwarming to see you cheer-leading for the demolition of basic rights that people fought and died for centuries to earn.

[rah]

Yes, I can remember in the south where being judged by a jury of your peers meant you could abuse blacks however you wanted and your peers would absolve you of any guilt.

[kentonio]

Yes, I can remember in the south where being judged by a jury of your peers meant you could abuse blacks however you wanted and your peers would absolve you of any guilt.

That clearly means that it is better to hand over all judicial decisions to the government.

[MikeH]

While I would normally agree with this, I have seen cases where it made sense.
In a case to decide how much an insurance company would be paying a victim it made sense for me to be excluded from the jury because I was working for an insurance company.
There are many obvious biases that should be considered.

But I do agree that they go overboard when defense lawyers are trying to cherry pick a favorable jury but to remove that totally isn't the answer.

But the type of reasons for exclusion need to be limited. The no question asked ones that usually are used to race or sex bias a jury should be excluded. The judge should be able to rule on every proposed exclusion.

Here, the judge would ask questions like that for general exclusions, and that's fair. Hardly ever comes up that anyone's excluded.

Also it can be really hard to get out of it for work reasons.

[MikeH]

Yes, I can remember in the south where being judged by a jury of your peers meant you could abuse blacks however you wanted and your peers would absolve you of any guilt.

I'm sure a local judge there would have come to a totally different verdict if there was no jury.

[rah]

I didn't mean my example to say juries are bad. I meant it as an example of why jury selection is important and taking a crack at the notion that jury of your peers meant people that knew you personally. A jury of your buddies is not a good thing.

[MikeH]

Oh yeah, obviously it never meant people you know personally. That's just HC being an idiot.

It just means equal, which in the US is everyone right?

[kentonio]

I didn't mean my example to say juries are bad. I meant it as an example of why jury selection is important and taking a crack at the notion that jury of your peers meant people that knew you personally. A jury of your buddies is not a good thing.

Ah, my apologies for the snarky reply then.