Professional jurors

[ljw]

I starting thinking about this after hearing the results of the Scooter Libby trail. And I find it impossible for me to determine whether or not it was a just verdict. But it does appear that the jurors in this trial lacked a certain methodical approach in reaching their verdict. According to what I heard from the media, of course.

For a long time now I've thought that a jury which was employed solely to render decisions in court cases would be preferable to what we have now. The people chosen to sit on a particular trial would be chosen for their area of expertise. That is, a financial lawsuit use accountants, a malpractise suit use doctors, teachers, etc.

A couple of years ago I was in a stolen trailer trial, and the defendent stated that he had made the trailer, not stolen it. He had no receipts, machinery, tools, even a workplace. Most of the people on the jury knew what mass produced, professionally built equipment would look like. However, a couple of the jurors were ignorant about such things. And they didn't want an innocent man wrongfully convicted. Finally after hashing and rehashing all the evidence we had seen, everyone voted guilty. Nobody was harassed in changing their decision. They were people with open minds and came to understand the differences between mass produced and home made.

Just think that in this highly technical and complex life, very difficult and complicated decisions are being made in jury trials by laymen.

Methinks we've outgrown this part of a trial by jury.

Larry

[magnumpi]

Larry : I've had the same thought since the OJ debacle, if not before. If you operate under the premise that 7 of 10 in this country are morons (and that may be conservative), it becomes a necessity IMO. The whole system needs an enema - for starters. Just look at that pathetic judge in the Anna Nicole fiasco and tell me he shouldn't be replaced - you can't. Craig

[KETCHAM]

I almost was a professional.Spent two and a half months on a case.Was not very exciting either.Federal jury duty was boring.Case ended in a mis-trial.Boy was I %$$%&%$%.Ketcham

[Eugene]

Something has been bothering me greatly about the Libby and Martha Stewart cases.

1) No individuals were convicted of the initial crime for which the investigation was conducted. Yet two individuals were convicted of lying to investigators.

2) Martha Steward served 6 months in prison and several months on supervised probation. Libby's sentence is yet to be determined. The maximum sentence they could/could have served is 40 years.

And yet. Individuals committing serious felonies are given probation, reduced sentences - spend less time in prison - face less time in prison for the crime(s) committed than for lying to investigators. Doesn't seem right. Perhaps we should be prosecuting criminals committing rape, murder, burglary, etc, for lying to investigators instead of the felony.

Eugene

[ljw]

Eugene wrote:

Something has been bothering me greatly about the Libby and Martha Stewart cases.

You know, I tried to be neutral about the Libby case because I wanted to get out my thoughts on the trial by jury foremost. But I do share your concerns on this matter. Unfortunately, the venue of most of these trials are in places that lean in a certain direction, politically, and have a certain agenda. After the Libby verdict I turned off these talk shows, left or right, for a while. First, I'm irritated with the findings of the jury. And secondly, EVERYBODY in the media cares piddly about the outcome of the verdict, but is concerned with their ratings share in covering the story.

What does the common man do about this situation? My answer is to turn them off!

More and more, people believe that the humane thing to do is to "take care" of the less fortunate. In my personal opinion, it breeds a lack of self esteem, resulting in jealousy, anger, resentment, etc. Don't think I'm mean spirited. It makes me feel good to see people who actually need the help, to receive it. This is the greatest country on this Earth, and it would truly shameful to do any less.

I still can't understand how a minority of the people in the country; who, by their own free choice(s), refuse to constructively participate in the democratic way of life, but never the less, command the attention and admiration of the masses. Well, I do understand, actually. It's how elections are won.

Nowadays, most people frown upon people who work hard and obtain a certain amount of possessions. I believe everyone should be successful. "Idle hands are a devil's workshop". Something like that.

This shouldn't bother me. Except for an increase in taxes, any left leaning government would probably benefit me. But it does bother me.

There, I've said it! But I do realize that these are my personal opinions and, and I fully understand there may be differing opinions that must carry equal consideration..

Note to Dennis: Thank you setting certain guidelines on certain subject matter. These are items we should remember each time we speak. I hope that I haven't crossed the line, because I really enjoy this website and appreciate the fact you provide it for us.

Larry

Larry

[Merlin]

Here is something that sticks in my craw about being a juror. If someone testifies about an automobile accident, he/she usually has to be an expert on how the road is made, how much cement is used, what test criteria is used for the cement, how wide the road is supposed to be by regulation, how long it takes cement to cure, what the flagman had for breakfast the third day of the pour, etc., etc.. Then on some trials, you are asked to find a defendant innocent or guilty on reasons of insanity. Why would a juror have the expertise to say someone is sane or insane unless they are all psychiatrist and have examined him/her?

[Bigdog]

One problem with "professional" jurors is that just like "Expert" witnesses, there are always opposing viewpoints on any legal matter. Professional jurors would soon develop track records based on how they decided certain cases. How long would it be until lawyers (both prosecution and defense) started seeking out certain jurors to be seated in their cases?
The average citizen may not be a legal expert but jurors with reasonable intelligence can do a pretty good job of sorting the facts from the BS.

[Lance Leitzel]

Well, I'd like to tell my story about this. I had the honor of sitting on the Grand Jury while back. Now at least I had the luxury of having only one side of the story told to me and the ability to ask questions about the cases, but it amazed me how 9 people hearing the same one sided argument could reach many different findings. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we didn't, but in every case, I'm glad I was there.

Now some of the cases still haven't been settled, so I will try to keep this story as generic as possible. Net - Farmer on witness stand, quite angry about being there, he had a crop to harvest and one of his tractors had been stolen (that was the point of this hearing). Finally got to question time and I asked if his tractor was bigger than a cub? Well, this angry farmer looked at me and smiled, "Well it sure is..." It sure seemed to make his day that at least one of the 9 had been on a tractor before.

Anyway, don't forget that all jurors are "professional." I got paid $10 a day. Personally, I'd rather all jurors be professional, just at something other than being jurors.

[John *.?-!.* cub owner]

I have served on a federal jury (not grand) and I found a wide variety of opinions as has been mentioned. There were people there who wanted to hand out money for a sob story, and some that followed the law. In the end it was settled by the law. I definitely agree with Bigdog and Lance's oppinion as to the type of jurors that should serve. I was lucky in that my employer provided full wages (minus jury pay) while I was serving, but most small businesses and many large ones do not. The low wages, which in many cases were set 50 years ago can be a hard ship on some people.

[phantom]

never been on a jury and probably never will. the lawyers on both sides are able to disqualify a juror. as an ex-cop the defence knows i know too much about law to be baffled by bull shirt. i used to at least show up when called. a waste of time. now i just call and get excused.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Good morning Gentlemen,

Some of the quasi-democratic nations of Eastern Europe used the "professional juror" model, for the very same reasons it seems attractive to us now. I have, too, considered the benefits and problems of such a system.

Some of them did run afoul for the very reason Bigdog mentioned. Others circumambulated that problem by using a "professional juror pool lottery", but indeed, if a juror is inclined to vote a certain way, intrinsically, then, even the lottery system becomes nothing more than justice by the roll of dice.

If we watch a neighbour shoot himself in the foot, and see that it is painful, it is not necessary to repeat that experiment to gain that knowledge. Thus, I do not believe that we need to experiment with a "professional juror" system here to realize that these same problems, and many others that are built into such a system, would follow directly.

I certainly agree that there are problems with our justice system, but they are problems of encumbrance, and not of intrinsic nature. We have a very strong Mule here, gentlemen, in our justice system, and it has the capacity to serve us well, but we must take proper care of it, or it will indeed cease to function properly, and in those instances, we seem to find the reasons to complain about it.

We must have the courage of our convictions to stand behind it, and that means, unfortunately, paying for it. It is necessary to build, and maintain enough prisons, and penal systems so that judges can hand down appropriate sentences for crimes. The less compassionate among you will, at this point, start thinking along the lines of "kill the @%^$@#'s", and "put them all on an island and let them deal with each other"...of course, and I understand this, as I used to be one of you.

The bottom line seems to indicate that prison, or any other punishment, really, is not really a deterrent to crime, but we must, for our own protection, remove those persons who present a danger to society, from society, and we must be prepared to do so for extended periods of time, because "rehabilitation" doesn't really work, either.

So, for everyone who complains about the way judges sentence these days, and the way plea-bargains are arranged to vastly curtail prison time, you need to realize that the only alternative is paying more money, in some shape or form, to imprison these individuals for longer periods.

Of course, some of you are thinking that prisons are "too good" for some of these people......well, you are partially correct, but, I will say, overall, that for every 1 prison that is "too nice", there are probably 3 that are "hell holes". We need some sort of standardization here, being humane and decent, and yet not providing a lifestyle that is enviable in any way.

Of course, by the same token, I have always thought that prisons should be structured in such a way that the inmates provide for themselves, to as great an extent as possible, easing the burden on the public for their care, and at the same time, providing them some personal satisfaction of having accomplished something. This idea is usually opposed by business owners, who see lost contracts as a result of this practice, and by ultra-liberals, who see this, in some way, as inhumane, although I think keeping people as "pets" is much more inhumane than giving them something useful to do.

Let me give you all a "working" example of perversity of our justice system.....

My Girlfriend has a nephew, Mikey, who is 21 now. If you ever encountered him working at my tent at a fair, you would think "Nice, polite, handsome boy." Last summer he worked with us on the road as a "bull"....driving in tent stakes with sledgehammer, carrying heavy boxes and so forth. We did this because employment was a condition of his parole, and, being illiterate, and a parolee, he's not exactly the "pick of the litter" for employers.

The reason he went to prison in the first place, was that one night, he, and 3 friends decided, under the influence of several intoxicants, that it would be a good idea to drive around the wealthy suburbs of Reading, PA, and throw rocks through people's house windows.

Now, Mikey is not a bright boy, in fact, prior to his arrest, he was receiving SSI benefits for being "mentally retarded", and I would say, after working with him for a summer, that this is a fair assessment of his faculties. So, when authorities questioned the other boys, they denied their involvement, but, Mikey admitted his. OK, nothing wrong with being truthful, and owning up to your sins. I find that admirable about him. The problem is that he did not succumb to pressure to implicate his friends, which, I suppose, from a certain point of view, is also admirable. So, at the age of 17, he was tried as an adult for all of the charges, alone, in hopes that at some point he would "crack" and implicate the other boys, which he never did, of course. His sentence, in the end, was 5-10 years imprisonment, and restitution in the amount of $35,000, and an additional fine of $30,000.

Anyone besides me think that this was a little extreme for a case of criminal vandalism? Actually, considering his faculties, more like criminal stupidity??

He told me at one point over the summer that if he could have served out his entire sentence in the County prison, he would have rather stayed the 10 years, because life there was easier than it was outside. When he was 18, however, he was transferred to state prison, which was an entirely different matter. He told me that he had been sexually assaulted in state prison more times than he could remember, both by inmates and prison employees. I encouraged him to take that information public, but he would have none of that..... Male pride and all, of course.

So, two years and a little more of state prison, and he was released on parole, with the condition that he find a job. Fascinating, really..... an illiterate, clueless kid, who has the earning potential of a housefly.

So, we took him on for the summer for a meager $30 a day (on days we were open...nothing on travel days, when he worked the most)...but more than he could get anywhere else. We fed him, and gave him a place to sleep, as well. It kept his payment arrangement with the parole officer, and gave him a few bucks for beer (I myself do not drink, and wish he had saved it for something else, but that was his decision).

At the end of the summer, he went back to his mother's house, and tried for a while to find a job, but of course who would have him? So, when the parole officer started becoming threatening, he took off out of state, with my blessing, and a couple of dollars from me for travel expenses. What is one supposed to do for one such as he? I cannot pay for a criminal attourney to re-open his case for him, although I wish that I could.

His parole arrangement is such that he will remain on parole until the entire $65,000 is paid back, and of course, he cannot regain SSI benefits until he is off of parole. Fascinating, really.

I didn't have a lot of sympathy for "stupid kid syndrome" before this event, but I must tell you now, that the way our justice system treats older teens and young adults in some cases needs to be re-evaluated, particularly in cases where society has failed those kids to begin with.

In some cases, we create our own problems......

Namaste,

--Tom

[JBall8019]

i have had the unfortunate experience of having 11 people listen to a prosecuter and an incompetant lawman talk about me. thank goodness the jury listened to my solicitor! i was so afraid that the jury would not be fair but as BD said they saw thru the bs!
john
btw what are the new guidlines for this forum? and 400# you have nothing to apologize for imo. keep writing!