Juries

[Mike_Yates]

A guilty/not guilty verdict is based on the unanimous decision of a jury, meaning that every juror must agree on one verdict. If they can't, then a mistrial is declared.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Also in theory being judged by your peers would mean that context matters. Sure so and so stole your horse, but he stole your horse to get the doctor for his mother. Or hell, you're just a shitty person and deserved to have your horse stolen. Whether or not that was an ideal plan or not isn't the point.

A professional jury would in all likelihood not be "elites" in any true sense of the word. They would be public servants like cops, judges, district attorneys, the military and park rangers. If those are what you think make up the1% of our society that can pretend to be elite (really we're talking more the .1 or .01% if we really mean elites) then I want to move to your world.

Aside from that pesky Constitution there is only one major hurdle I see over this and that's the fact that professional juries could quickly become the 5th branch of government or the 10th Wonder of the world (are we only up to 10?). Essentially what keeps juries from having any real effect on laws is equal parts ignorance and no way of organizing. A world with professional juries however (assuming Jury Nullification stays in play) is a group of people with the power to shape laws.

Take marijuana for the sake of something easy and topical. Officer Swanson wheels in with the defendent. A Pimp named slickback who is accused of selling weed. The jury is convinced he did infact commit the crime. But zero shits are given and they send him on his way. This happens over and over and over again and eventually Officer Swanson gets the point. Don't arrest drug dealers (or at least not weed dealers) and the law is in effect erased from the books because the people who decide guilt won't condemn this crime or that. No voting or Congress or Supreme Court necessary. Just a small group of professionals with an agenda.

I'm sure there are ways to fix this but little that immediately comes to mind.

 

[MaBelle3120]

Well... it is a jury of their peers. Most criminals are idiots, anyways.

 

[oggbashan]

That's a nice idea and all, but the Constitution was written when only property-owning males were going to be on juries, so the only people judged by equals in the eyes of the law were property-owning males. Property-owning males were essentially the elite of the day.

Nowadays any dipshit can serve on a jury, so it's a greater possibility of being judged by dipshits, or as we would call it, "the other extreme." When I offer up a suggestion like professional juries, I'm saying it in order to weed out the dipshits who don't know the Constitution from Garfield while making the requirements inclusive enough that anyone can theoretically learn to be a juror if he or she just takes the time.

In other words, people would still be judged by equals, just the more conscientious of them.

The problem with juries who were property-owning males, and it was the same in England at the time the US Constitution was written, was that the offenders were NOT judged by their equals, but by the elite.

In the 18th Century, death was a frequent penalty for what would now be classed as minor crimes or misdemeanors. Transportation - to the Americas, and then to Australia, was for very mild offences.

But the property owning elite didn't understand, and didn't want to understand, the problems facing the poor and deprived.

Juries that are a genuine cross-section of society are likely to be more sympathetic to a defendant's plea of poverty if they have experienced poverty themselves.

They should still decide ON THE EVIDENCE, but might have a wider view than an 'elite'. They don't need to know the Constitution or even the law. The judge is supposed to explain to the jurors what the law is.

They need to know how to tell WHO is telling the truth and who is a lying asshole - and if they have come from the streets they might be better at doing that than an educated elite.

 

[oggbashan]

A guilty/not guilty verdict is based on the unanimous decision of a jury, meaning that every juror must agree on one verdict. If they can't, then a mistrial is declared.

Not in England. If a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict after a reasonable time (after 2 hours and 10 minutes), a Crown Court judge can direct that a majority verdict can be accepted. It is not a simple majority, only a couple of jurors can dissent.