Jury duty: Professional or of peers?

[Hoosier]

Semi-related, have any of you heard of Jury Nullification? One of the reasons for having a Jury of your Peers is that when a trial comes up, not only is the accused on trial, but so is the law. If a Jury believes that a person is guilty of breaking that law, but that in this instance what they did was correct and the law was not, they should vote not guilty. So say in theory someone was driving their sick child to the hospital and got pulled over for speeding, or any other situation in which you feel there was no victim and the law is unjust -- you are within your rights to say not guilty.

Also, if you just want to get out of jury duty, during the voire dire process where they select jurors, ask about jury nullification. Nothing will get a DA to kick you off a panel faster than asking about Jury Nullification -- it means you might rule against their case, and they care about win/loss ratio.

[Troublco]

Semi-related, have any of you heard of Jury Nullification? One of the reasons for having a Jury of your Peers is that when a trial comes up, not only is the accused on trial, but so is the law. If a Jury believes that a person is guilty of breaking that law, but that in this instance what they did was correct and the law was not, they should vote not guilty. So say in theory someone was driving their sick child to the hospital and got pulled over for speeding, or any other situation in which you feel there was no victim and the law is unjust -- you are within your rights to say not guilty.

Also, if you just want to get out of jury duty, during the voire dire process where they select jurors, ask about jury nullification. Nothing will get a DA to kick you off a panel faster than asking about Jury Nullification -- it means you might rule against their case, and they care about win/loss ratio.

I've heard of it, and I've heard the same thing. They don't like the fact that ordinary folks can do that, so they squelch it.

[TFOGGER]

The system as it stands is not perfect, as most if not all of us have prejudices and preconceptions, as well as situational biases. That's what voir dire is about, both sides have equal opportunity to try to seat a jury that's favorable to their case. Most attorneys actually prefer jurors with a minimal knowledge of the law, as they can be more easily influenced. Professional juries would remove one of the powerful controls from the justice system because, if they are employed by the court system, they would have a vested interest in making sure that the conviction rate stayed high to ensure revenue to the court. Sure, jury duty is not the most convenient thing in the world, but I will serve if called(again), as I feel it is a better system than many if not most other trial processes, and I would like that system to be available to me if the need ever arose.

[10x]

The judge is there to hear the case, if you don't want a jury. You would get a decision based on law and not mitigating factors.

I have been through several trials dealing with contract issues, damage calculations, business valuations. The juries I dealt with were generally good and look at things in a common sense way. i.e yes the contract says this and is in favor of party b, but party b was out to screw party a. That is just wrong. Verdict in favor of party a.

I have also seen the judge overrule the juries. That is a bitter pill after spending $50,000 on a trial and getting a favorable verdict.

There are a lot of reasons not the trust the court systems. Fairness and logic are lost sometimes.

[rondog]

Can I vote for reinstating public executions? I'll bring potato salad.....

[Irving]

Make it hotdogs, burritos, and gyros and I'll come. I won't even open my mouth for potato salad.