A Modest Proposal for Reforming the Jury Trial System
I propose that we do away with the traditional jury made up of citizens, and replace it with a professional class of full-time jurors. by Richard in Japan
(conservative)
Monday, August 22, 2011
In the wake of the Casey Anthony trial, many people have expressed emotions ranging from disgust to loathing at the verdict.
I wasn't one of them. Here in Japan, too cheap to pay for cable TV, I'm mercifully free of the 24-hour news cycle. That case was just one of many aspects of life in the 21st Century that I didn't have time to make up my mind about.
However, it did trigger a flood of memories of similar cases in which it seemed that justice was not done.
O.J. Simpson, obviously. The lady who was awarded two million dollars for spilling coffee into her own lap. The police assault on Rodney King. Lorena Bobbitt, accused of castrating her husband in retaliation for his abuse, was acquitted; Wayne Bobbitt, accused of abusing her in the first place, was also acquitted.
In every case, the jury reached a verdict contrary to the facts, or at least counter-intuitive to the rest of us.
Admittedly we weren't there in the courtroom. We weren't privy to the details they heard, or the discussions they had in the deliberations. That's a key reason I didn't let myself get worked up about the Casey Anthony trial. I try not to second-guess people, especially if I'm not sure I could have done a better job in their place.
Still, perhaps it's time to reconsider one of the most cherished ideals of modern society: a jury of one's peers. I propose that we do away with the traditional jury made up of citizens, and replace it with a professional class of full-time jurors.
(At the time I began my research for this article, I was sure it was original with me. I should have known there is "nothing new under the sun." This guy and this guy, to name only two, had basically the same idea.)
Once upon a time, the law was fairly easy to grasp, and it wasn't too much to ask twelve citizens to determine whether it had been broken. Today, just to keep up with our civilization, the law has become so convoluted that even lawyers and judges can't keep up. How can we expect a dozen people chosen at random to understand it sufficiently to render a life-and-death verdict on a fellow citizen?
One of my fellow critics describes a jury trial as "a method of adjudication that was invented in the Middle Ages", wholly insufficient for the 21st Century. The same writer describes a judge's instructions to a jury as "a mini-course in tort law", more appropriate for a semester in law school than an afternoon prior to deliberations in an actual trial.
Add to this the undeniable propensity of jurors to be swayed by emotion or bias. The best lawyers play on both. This problem can certainly never be eliminated, but I'm convinced it can be reduced by introducing a professional class of full-time jurors, with minimum requirements for training and certification.
I'll leave it to others to determine what those qualifications should be, but I see it as a legitimate college major and a career path. The coursework would include basic jurisprudence, of course, but also introductions to police procedures, such as forensics and chain of custody. Perhaps the most important lessons would be in observation, and learning to divorce one's expectations from one's conclusions. I can envision such a program at city and community colleges, perhaps as an associates degree requiring only two years.
I believe that such a system would immediately streamline our justice system. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers would be freed from the temptation toward courtroom theatrics, and knowing that the jurors were trained in procedures, they could instead focus on presenting the facts of the case. Furthermore, knowing that the jury was less likely to be won over by an appeal to emotion, many lawyers would no doubt settle out of court rather than roll the dice on a trial, as happens all too often now.
Certainly there will be snags in my plan. An occasional juror might be inclined to play god, which is likely true under the current system as well. Such an individual will be quickly identified and eliminated. It might be necessary to pay a professional juror more than the current rate (never having served, I have no idea what that is) but I think that's a small price to pay for a more efficient legal system.
(c) Kublain Khan Unlimited 2011.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 0
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Richard in Japan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Richard in Japan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This is a truly awful idea. After all, who would want to become a professional juror? Why, someone who wants to convict people, of course! You wouldn't find people becoming professional jurors because they want to find people innocent. Nor would people become professional jurors in order to demonstrate their open-mindedness.
Trials are already prosecution heavy, since the prosecution gets to make the first opening statement and last closing statement. Plus, the prosecution gets to define the scope of the trial's inquiry based on how they present their case. Now, with the addition of professional jurors with a built-in inclination to convict, the scales of justice will lean even further toward the prosecution.
I can just imagine the voire dire portion of the trial:
"Tell me, Mr. Juror, are you a professional juror, or you just an amateur who is not qualified to judge the guilt or innocence of the defendant?"
"How many convictions do you have to your credit?"
"What credentials have the universities given you toward your standing as a professional juror?"
"How many hours of continuing study have you taken this past year regarding how to convict more defendants?"
We'll have state regulations as to who can become a professional juror, which will include pre-screening for such things as whether or not the juror favors the death penalty, whether or not the juror has grand jury experience, etc. It'll be a terrific opportunity for the state to insure that it only gets prosecution-favorable jurors in all its trials.
The author of this article really needs to re-read history to understand why jury trials were instituted in the first place. Here's a hint: they weren't instituted in order to make it easier to prosecute defendants!
Walt, on the other hand, there should not be a mandatory JURY DUTY as it clearly violates the 13th amendment. When the government FORCES me to serve as a juror, they are enslaving me.
Therefore, although I wouldn't advocate what the author describes completely I would make the Jury system voluntary so that it follows the Constitution and does not violate the 13th amendment.
In summary, let the jury system still be random but make it voluntary not compulsory and with JUST pay,
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: August 23, 2011 06:42:36 AM
If you make the jury system strictly voluntary with "Just" pay, then you run into the same problem that you have with professional jurors - a jury with leanings toward the procecustion and not towards justice. If Jury Duty was not manditory, then most reasonable people would choose not to serve, and wouldn't you rather have a reasonable person sitting in judgement of you rather than a person who can increase the number of "gigs" they can get by the number of convictions under their belts?
Another flaw to the logic of this whole article is the assumption that only the guilty are ever arrested. If we only arrested the guilty, then yes, a professional jury makes sense - but wait a second, wouldn't that violate the 5th Amendment?
