Professional Jurors -- Good or Bad?

[Edward Teach]

Should we have professional jurors?

Everybody in the judicial system is a professional except the one who makes the most important decisions, the juror. The judges, lawyers, court reporters, bailiffs, some of the witnesses, and often even the defendants are pros. Why not the jurors?

Jury duty is at least an inconvenience for most of us and a tremendous burden for some. Many people try to avoid it.

Today’s technology often makes it very difficult for most of us to understand the evidence and render a fair verdict. Even seemingly simple cases often involve understanding computers, biology, environmental issues and such.

On the other hand, many believe that a jury made up of people selected at random is the best method to assure a fair trial.

What do you think?

 

[R. Richard]

The problem with professional jurors is that you would tend to get people with certain ideologies in certain areas. In one area, if a girl dances topless, she get s the death penalty. In another area, if a girl dances nude, with audience participation, no problem.

JMHO.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's an interesting notion, at least in some limited categories, such as medical malpractice, as proposed by Phillip Howard, author of "The Death of Common Sense":

Dedicated Health Courts Can End Malpractice Crisis

Our nation has a long history of expert courts in areas that require technical knowledge or special expertise, beginning early on with admiralty courts. Today we have bankruptcy courts, tax courts, patent courts and a wide range of specialized tribunals in areas from workers’ compensation to vaccine liability.

A proposal for expert health courts has been developed in a joint venture of Common Good, which I chair, and the Harvard School of Public Health. It promises to restore reliability and foster confidence by incorporating the following features:

» There would be no juries. Instead, specially trained administrative judges, advised by neutral experts paid for by the court -- not by lawyers for either side -- would make decisions and write opinions on standards of care.

» A liberalized standard of recovery would provide compensation to injured patients based on whether the injury should have been avoidable. Someone who comes into the hospital with pneumonia and comes out with a staph infection, for example, should be able to recover without having to prove how it happened.

» An individual injured by malpractice would receive 100% of his or her actual monetary losses, including future lost income -- but damages for pain and suffering would be paid according to a preset schedule depending on the injury. This is how people are compensated in other countries.

» Expedited procedures, including mandatory disclosure by defendants, would ensure quick resolution or disputes, avoiding the monetary and psychological costs of drawn-out proceedings.

The advantages of a specialized health court are enormous. A court that writes opinions based on accepted medical standards can provide affirmative guidelines for improving care. The incentives for defensive medicine will be sharply reduced, and a culture of trust will restore the candor needed to avoid tragic errors. Patients will receive settlements much sooner, paying only a fraction of what they now pay in legal fees. Most importantly, reliable justice will provide a foundation to restore order to American health care.

http://cgood.org/index.html

BTW, the first co-chairs of Howard's organization's board were George McGovern and Alan Simpson - this is a very bi-partisan enterprise.

 

[Edward Teach]

It's an interesting notion, at least in some limited categories, such as medical malpractice, as proposed by Phillip Howard, author of "The Death of Common Sense":



BTW, the first co-chairs of Howard's organization's board were George McGovern and Alan Simpson - this is a very bi-partisan enterprise.

I think a professional jury would have found OJ guilty. But I also think that the prosecution screwed the case up too.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I can see the both ways. From the pro side -
You have more knowlegable people who only do this and, over time, become quite adept at ferretting out the true facts for a correct decision.

But on the con side, are they really your "peers" as guaranteed by our legal system? And what about attorney manipulation of the facts in the case. Finally, a single small group is easilly corrupted by one side or the other.

 

[shereads]

I'm all for professional jurors - at least in cases that rely heavily on forensic evidence. The more advanced the science of forensics becomes, the more time will have to be spent in the courtroom, attempting to educate jurors on the implications of a DNA match, a partial match, etc.

It makes sense to begin with a panel of jurors who have at least a basic understanding of forensics - so they can spend their time in the jury room weighing the evidence, and less time struggling to understand the science behind it.

 

[only_more_so]

A professional jury goes against the entire principle of a jury system. Having a professional jury would be the same as having a panel of judges instead of a single judge. Basically they would no longer be the defendant's peers.

A better question would be whether to have a jury system at all. Or alternatively whether to establish qualifications for juries, or provide some sort of incentive to be a juror.

 

[cumallday]

professional jurors = lawyers.

Jury duty is participatory democracy. If citizens agree to exclude themselves from any area of democratic practice, they automatically exclude the public good as having any role to play in that area. Experts have their role to play and that is why they are cross examined by lawyers who already act as surrogate professional jurors. Experts manage truth, lawyers manage their truthfulness (truthiness), and democracy manages the public good.

 

[S-Des]

Bad. Just like judges, police and prosecutors, they'd eventually become jaded because of the parade of horror they see every day. I'd rather see more punishment for lawyers (prosecutors and defense) who go outside the law to win cases.

 

[sutherngent985]

I can see the both ways. From the pro side -
You have more knowlegable people who only do this and, over time, become quite adept at ferretting out the true facts for a correct decision.

But on the con side, are they really your "peers" as guaranteed by our legal system? And what about attorney manipulation of the facts in the case. Finally, a single small group is easilly corrupted by one side or the other.

Having served on a couple of juries, I dont believe this is a good idea. Like someone else said, a professional would eventually become jaded and what would be horrific to a layman maybe wouldnt cause a pro juror to bat an eye.

But, at the same time, is a jury in any trial the defendants peers? It might be more so if they picked based on the defendants neighborhood, or profession or something like that. The way they do it now, I might be on trial for breaking a law in my industry and judged by X number of people who have no idea what is going on. The handpicked (by the lawyers) juries they have now are a joke. Take the first 8 or 12 or however many chosen from the jury holding area and those are the ones that sit...race, gender or anything else
doesnt matter. That still doesnt come to the definition of my peers but its better than the lawyers saying "This person is *whatever you name to disqualify them* and will not be able to render a fair judgement."

Bad. Just like judges, police and prosecutors, they'd eventually become jaded because of the parade of horror they see every day. I'd rather see more punishment for lawyers (prosecutors and defense) who go outside the law to win cases.

I think any lawyer, specially a prosecutor, who gets caught going outside the law should do jail time, at least as much as the law breaking would have caused the defendant to do...a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to life on faulty evidence...prosecutor gets life. Harsh maybe, but I bet it would just about stop the kind of thing that happened in the Duke case for instance.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

A professional jury goes against the entire principle of a jury system. Having a professional jury would be the same as having a panel of judges instead of a single judge. Basically they would no longer be the defendant's peers.

A better question would be whether to have a jury system at all. Or alternatively whether to establish qualifications for juries, or provide some sort of incentive to be a juror.

Please engage the issue raised about med-mal in my previous post. As Howard points out in the cited article, specialty courts have been around for a long time, and it is not reasonable to expect 12 good men and dumb to be able to sort out very technical issues that require sophisticated training in complex issues, not least of which are statistics. They are hardly the "defendents peers" in your words when the defendent is a highly trained professional in a technical field.


Shereads raises good points about cases with complex forensics, although different issues arise when we're talking criminal law.

 

[ishtat]

?

There is a case for examining the Roman (French) system which employs a jury, which I understand sits with and consults the judge (or judges). Their priority too is slightly different and that is to find out the truth of the matter rather than establish guilt/innocence. It takes the competitive element out of court procedure and gets rid of the notion of winners and losers.

I would be interested if anyone knows whether the State of Louisiana still has features of the 'code Napolean' or whether that has been subsumed within the legal systems operating elsewhere in the USA.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Should we have professional jurors?

Everybody in the judicial system is a professional except the one who makes the most important decisions, the juror. The judges, lawyers, court reporters, bailiffs, some of the witnesses, and often even the defendants are pros. Why not the jurors?

Jury duty is at least an inconvenience for most of us and a tremendous burden for some. Many people try to avoid it.

Today’s technology often makes it very difficult for most of us to understand the evidence and render a fair verdict. Even seemingly simple cases often involve understanding computers, biology, environmental issues and such.

On the other hand, many believe that a jury made up of people selected at random is the best method to assure a fair trial.

What do you think?

Its a good question Edward, but like someone said, it kinda blows the "random jury of your peers" out of the water.

But I think what you mean, and what might work, is a professional jury "pool" selection board, bipartisan and detatched from the defense and prosecution who do it now. The lawyers strike those potential jurors from the jury pool who may be jaded against thier side, ie, the defense doesn't want someone whose mother was raped and killed, to try thier defendant who is charged with raping and killing a mother.

When, actually, that might be one of the best jurors.

Anyways, it would add complexities and most important, expense, to the process. But if the defense and prosecution were presented with say, 24 potential jurors and then culled out those they didn't want it might follow the guidelines already in place to provide an impartial jury.

The selection board would of course choose 24 who could understand whatever forensic evidence which might be presented, and also, as previously stated, any medical or professional knowledge which would be neccessary to ensure that the final 12 would actually be a jury of the defendants peers.

I think that would at least answer many of the questions you raised, as well as culling out any jurors who just want to sentence the SOB to 30 years in prison and get home in time to watch thier favorite TV show.

Of course, then you get into all kinds of other problems, like how could a professional jury selector ignore the 100,000 dollar bribe offered? And stuff like that.

The system in place is flawed, and so trying new things isn't jacking with a perfect system. Its not like we could say "we can't fix it cause it ain't broke" and reading your post this was just one suggestion that popped into my lil head, so who knows what better suggestions could come up.

Keep the intelligent questions coming.

"Democracy is only slightly removed from anarchy, but it isn't as loud"

JMO

 

[angelicminx]

Should we have professional jurors?

Everybody in the judicial system is a professional except the one who makes the most important decisions, the juror. The judges, lawyers, court reporters, bailiffs, some of the witnesses, and often even the defendants are pros. Why not the jurors?

Jury duty is at least an inconvenience for most of us and a tremendous burden for some. Many people try to avoid it.

Today’s technology often makes it very difficult for most of us to understand the evidence and render a fair verdict. Even seemingly simple cases often involve understanding computers, biology, environmental issues and such.

On the other hand, many believe that a jury made up of people selected at random is the best method to assure a fair trial.

What do you think?

I like the idea that people are chosen at random because you do get a wide variety of experience, points of view and... empathy?

I'm not sure I would like 'professional jurors'. In the long run I think professionals would be hardened to the process.

 

[shereads]

I can see the both ways. From the pro side -
You have more knowlegable people who only do this and, over time, become quite adept at ferretting out the true facts for a correct decision.

But on the con side, are they really your "peers" as guaranteed by our legal system?

Jurors are drawn from the voter registration rolls, Jen. Mull that over.



Yep. I feel the same way. The legal definition of a peer is way different from mine.

For most of our history, the only defendants who were truly guaranteed a jury of their peers were white males. They were the only ones eligible to serve.

Even now, with no laws to mandate a racial or gender bias, you might be surprised to discover that your supposed "peers" include people who can barely read and write, and others whose understanding of the English language is "maybe half."

It's possible to argue that fairness is the goal, and not education, analytical skills or even intelligence; before forensic science came along, jurors didn't need to comprehend the relative uniqueness of a carpet fiber or a human hair. They needed enough common sense to follow the logic of each side's argument, and a willingness to suspend their prejudices (theoretically, at least.) Before the advent of mass media, it may even have been possible to seat twelve intelligent, well-read jurors who hadn't already been exposed to the details of a high-profile criminal case and drawn their own conclusions. But these days, if you're accused of a sensational crime, it seems you're stuck with a choice between jurors who live under a rock, and jurors who can claim with a straight face that they are immune to all those stories about you on 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC.

Even if you could somehow limit the pool of potential jurors to people you'd consider your peers, the idea of an impartial jury can still be rendered moot by the process of selection.

If you're being defended by a state-appointed attorney who can't spend more than a few hours in voir dire, you'll rely on the luck of the draw. But if you afford an attorney like Roy Black or Simpson's dream team, your defense will include a professional jury selection specialist. These are strategists whose work begins long before the voir dire process. They use everything from the psychology of body language to data-based marketing studies of a particular juror's zip code to predict his sociaeconomic status and even his likely political leanings.

If you get an impartial jury, it's probably because you couldn't afford the people whose job is to choose one prejudiced in your favor.

In the O.J. trial, the defense's pre-trial work included research to pinpoint the type of juror most likely to favor an acquittal - and not for the obvious reason of the defendant's celebrity status. That would have been too obvious a tactic, and too easy for the prosecution to counter during voir dire. Instead, the Simpson team selected for black women whose age and demographics placed them in a group identified as likely to resent Nicole Brown Simpson. Simply put, they looked for a jury who weren't horrifed by her death, and might even have thought she had it coming.

All things considered, I think the appeal of a professional jury depends on the person's guilt or innocence. If I were innocent, but faced with potentially damning circumstantial evidence, I'd want a panel of smart, seasoned professional jurors with nothing better to do than hear my case. If I were guilty, my best hope might be a jury of idiots.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think that the interesting thing on the medical malpractice court proposal is how little of it actually has to do with jury qualifications at all - and how many things it slips in under the guise of re-structuring the process, including caps on pain and suffering damages.

My first gut instinct, I have to say, is that I wouldn't trust anyone who played that particular game - that is, telling people that the main goal is to streamline the process by creating specialized medical courts, but actually slipping in a sweeping change to the law itself. It's not that I don't think it possible that caps on pain and suffering damages might be useful, but I don't trust people who can't argue the merits of them on their own without introducing them in a deceptively titled proposal.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think that the interesting thing on the medical malpractice court proposal is how little of it actually has to do with jury qualifications at all - and how many things it slips in under the guise of re-structuring the process, including caps on pain and suffering damages.

My first gut instinct, I have to say, is that I wouldn't trust anyone who played that particular game - that is, telling people that the main goal is to streamline the process by creating specialized medical courts, but actually slipping in a sweeping change to the law itself. It's not that I don't think it possible that caps on pain and suffering damages might be useful, but I don't trust people who can't argue the merits of them on their own without introducing them in a deceptively titled proposal.

And yet, this issue is so easy to demagogue and oversimplify in a destructive manner that we really need to rethink how we deal with it. Look, if an individual or several individuals commit fraud that harms people, they should be prosecuted under criminal law, jailed and fined. The same with gross negligence. But those are rarely the case with drug lawsuits or med-mal ones. In most cases, it's simply a matter of "cosmic injustice," or the luck of the draw. At best the circumstances are highly ambiguous. And yet plaintiffs naturally want someone to blame, and to punish. But what if no offence was committed? Compensation for actual damages is reasonable, but "punitive" awards just become a perversion in such circumstances, and a highly destructive one.

Understanding the nature of risk in these extraordinarily complex areas requires great sophistication, and ordinary juries are just plain incapable of doing it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

And yet, this issue is so easy to demagogue and oversimplify in a destructive manner that we really need to rethink how we deal with it. Look, if an individual or several individuals commit fraud that harms people, they should be prosecuted under criminal law, jailed and fined. The same with gross negligence. But those are rarely the case with drug lawsuits or med-mal ones. In most cases, it's simply a matter of "cosmic injustice," or the luck of the draw. At best the circumstances are highly ambiguous. And yet plaintiffs naturally want someone to blame, and to punish. But what if no offence was committed? Compensation for actual damages is reasonable, but "punitive" awards just become a perversion in such circumstances, and a highly destructive one.

Understanding the nature of risk in these extraordinarily complex areas requires great sophistication, and ordinary juries are just plain incapable of doing it.

I think it's worth looking into whether changes should be made. I simply would not trust someone so determinedly and yet deceptively pushing another agenda to be the ones to look into it. And I certainly don't think that arguing that pain and suffering damages aren't fair when no offense has been committed holds water as an argument for caps on those sorts of damages. No penalty of any sort is appropriate if no offense has actually been committed. That's potentially an argument for a more informed jury deciding whether an offense had actually taken place, but it's not a logical reason to limit pain and suffering damages. That would be like limiting the sentences for murder on the grounds that the defendent might actually have been innocent.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think it's worth looking into whether changes should be made. I simply would not trust someone so determinedly and yet deceptively pushing another agenda to be the ones to look into it. And I certainly don't think that arguing that pain and suffering damages aren't fair when no offense has been committed holds water as an argument for caps on those sorts of damages. No penalty of any sort is appropriate if no offense has actually been committed. That's potentially an argument for a more informed jury deciding whether an offense had actually taken place, but it's not a logical reason to limit pain and suffering damages. That would be like limiting the sentences for murder on the grounds that the defendent might actually have been innocent.

I recommend you check out the Common Good website, http://cgood.org/healthcare.html. Your suspicions are understandable but I think misplaced in this instance

America’s Failing Malpractice System

Why Health Courts Make Sense



§ America’s medical malpractice system fails patients and health care providers.

Few medical error victims receive compensation in the current system.[1] Much of the cost (as much as 60%) is consumed by legal fees and administrative costs.[2]

The high cost of malpractice insurance is a major issue in many states, with doctors and hospitals struggling to maintain patient access to services.[3]

The current legal system hinders patient safety by discouraging health care providers from reporting information about errors and near misses in treatment.[4]

Skyrocketing health care costs are the result, in part, of a culture of defensiveness.[5] It is impossible to make the choices to contain costs until there is a legal system that will reliably uphold those choices.

§ A new approach to medical justice is needed – one that fairly compensates injured patients, relieves strain on health care providers, and promotes quality care. Health courts are the right solution.[6]

Health court judges will have health care expertise and will issue written rulings, leading to more reliable verdicts. Verdicts will be based on better information, since judges will rely on neutral medical experts – not competing experts for hire.

More injured patients will be eligible for compensation. The claims process will involve less time and less hassle than a court trial does.

Health courts can help to reduce the need to find fault in the aftermath of a medical mistake, reducing the combativeness of the system.

Non-economic awards based on schedules will be more consistent and less arbitrary. Greater consistency of verdicts in like cases will encourage parties to resolve conflicts quickly, a win-win for both parties.

§ A broad coalition supports creating health court pilot projects.

The health court proposal has been developed by a joint venture of Common Good (www.cgood.org) and the Harvard School of Public Health, with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.[7]

The Progressive Policy Institute has endorsed health courts. AARP has called for pilot projects. A broad of array of leading citizens have endorsed health courts, including former senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson, former justice officials Griffin Bell, Eric Holder and Larry Thompson, and dozens of university presidents and corporate leaders.[8]

JCAHO, patient safety authorities, and many medical organizations support health court pilots.[9]

The New York Times has called for demonstration projects to explore new approaches to resolving malpractice disputes. USA Today and the Economist have endorsed health courts, and favorable coverage has been received in many other publications.[10]

 

[Goldie Munro]

Should we have professional jurors?

Everybody in the judicial system is a professional except the one who makes the most important decisions, the juror. The judges, lawyers, court reporters, bailiffs, some of the witnesses, and often even the defendants are pros. Why not the jurors?

Jury duty is at least an inconvenience for most of us and a tremendous burden for some. Many people try to avoid it.

Today’s technology often makes it very difficult for most of us to understand the evidence and render a fair verdict. Even seemingly simple cases often involve understanding computers, biology, environmental issues and such.

On the other hand, many believe that a jury made up of people selected at random is the best method to assure a fair trial.

What do you think?

No No NO!
Professiaonal jurors make me feel sick!

 

[shereads]

No No NO!
Professiaonal jurors make me feel sick!

At least they'd be able to read and have some basic English comprehension skills. That alone would be an improvement over some of the regular jurors I've served with.

 

[Goldie Munro]

At least they'd be able to read and have some basic English comprehension skills. That alone would be an improvement over some of the regular jurors I've served with.

I hear you but do you have a legal judicial system in the US?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I recommend you check out the Common Good website, http://cgood.org/healthcare.html. Your suspicions are understandable but I think misplaced in this instance

Sorry. Nothing here suggests to me anything different to what you posted before. "Why Health Courts Make Sense" is not a fair presentation of a proposition to radically rehaul and even eliminate pain and suffering damages. This is a Trojan horse, and no one of good will or good ethics should be using it. If the authors believe that passionately in capping or eliminating pain and suffering awards, let them put that in the title of the proposal, or at least give some indication that they wish to change the law, not just the courts.

 

[only_more_so]

Please engage the issue raised about med-mal in my previous post. As Howard points out in the cited article, specialty courts have been around for a long time, and it is not reasonable to expect 12 good men and dumb to be able to sort out very technical issues that require sophisticated training in complex issues, not least of which are statistics. They are hardly the "defendents peers" in your words when the defendent is a highly trained professional in a technical field.


Shereads raises good points about cases with complex forensics, although different issues arise when we're talking criminal law.

I should have addressed the issue of torte law as opposed to criminal law. I think having torte law decided by juries is insane. Why should a woman get millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself? Because people see McDonald's as having bottomless pockets. The same thing with insurance cases.

In malpractice there are two sides. There is the criminal behavior which should be decided by a jury. A jury should be able to determine if someone's behavior was criminal or not. I wouldn't trust a jury to determine if a guy with three sports cars, a 5000 sqrt.ft. house and a trophy wife owes a poor family a million dollars because their son died on an operating table. Especially with some of the statistics I've heard about malpractice cases. What particularly comes to mind is that doctors that are seen as "nice" and "personable" are much less likely to get sued for gross negligence than a "mean" doctor who did nothing wrong.

 

[only_more_so]

Jurors are drawn from the voter registration rolls, Jen. Mull that over.

Actually, that isn't entirely true. I was called for jury duty in Massachusetts while I was a student. I was registered to vote in Maryland and legally I was a resident of Maryland (since students do not have to change their residency when going to school out of state). But in Massachusetts merely living there is reason enough to get drafter.

Normally I would have loved to serve on a jury, but considering the cost of tuition, I was paying a lot of money every day I was on the hook. Luckily, I wasn't seated for the first trial of the day, and was the last juror excused from the box on the second trial my jury pool needed to enpanel.