quote:Shouldn't someone who ultimately decides if a person lives or dies, or spends their entire life in prison, have some accountability for that choice?
I want to expand on this point - it underlies everything I wrote in my initial post.
The jury convicting someone has tremendous oversight. The judge ensures that the elements are minimally proven and that the law is followed, the prosecutor decides in the first instance whether to prosecute, and the legislature decides what a crime is - that is, what behavior subjects someone to criminal punishment.
If the jury convicts, that decision is subject to review by the trial judge, at least one level of direct appeal, at least one level of conditional appeal, and one level of collateral attack. It's guaranteed that, if the defendant chooses, at least three separate judges (or panels of judges) will review the conviction.
If the jury acquits, there is nothing anyone can do about it. There's essentially no way for the state to get a new trial or to convict that person for that crime - even if a manifest error of law or fact has occurred. Even if the jurors all say, "We know he was guilty, but we acquitted anyway." The decision to acquit is unreviewable, and this is the essential element of the jury system. If you remove it, there's nothing of real substance left of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of the the saying "people get the government they deserve." Except here, saying "societies get the verdicts they deserve" would be perhaps even more true. If the populace is, by and large, stupid, I don't think much of anything can be done.
Dag, I've heard that lawyers on BOTH sides of a case will try to get rid of smart, educated, thoughtful jurors, in a general sense, during jury selection. What are your thoughts on that?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I've heard that lawyers on BOTH sides of a case will try to get rid of smart, educated, thoughtful jurors, in a general sense, during jury selection. What are your thoughts on that?
That phenomenon exists, but it's much more common in the imagination of the press and public than in the practice of law.
I have no problems with the idea of reforming jury selection, although I haven't seen a comprehensive plan I actually like yet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That phenomenon exists, but it's much more common in the imagination of the press and public than in the practice of law."
Whom do you feel is more likely to do it, the prosecution, or the defense, or with what does it tend to vary?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: When is the government going to figure out that nobody wants jury duty, and everybody who can does their best to get out of it?
I think you might be surprised. When I was called about 6 months ago, I was part of a group of about 110 people, and I think more than half really wanted to serve.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm jaded, but I see jury duty in the same light as elected office: Some of the people who would be best suited to do it are the least interested. The fact that they don't want to do it might be part of what makes them especially suited.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
