Law Forum : Are Juries Really Necessary?

Discussion in 'Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership' started by legit-writer, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. legit-writer

    legit-writer Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Do you agree that juries should be involved in the legal system as they are, or should judges find facts as well? Do you like the jury system, or do you believe that it does not work as intended and a judge is better qualified to make those decisions?

    I am on and off the fence on this matter. I believe the system works good now with both judge and jury. Of course, I believe it could improve some. A judge is educated on the law. The judge is foused on the law of the case in front of him/her. Listening to references brought forward from the legal side of the case. However, I do believe the cloud of rules, stautes,and other case law being brought front in a trail takes the attention of the judge. The judge will make sure the court in running according to the law, and in proper order. Where as, the jury will be listening with a different set of ears. Listening mainly for the evidence at hand, and the information directly related to the case at hand. Between the judge and jury I believe a person will getting the best chance in justice. The way the system is designed now a person recieves a trail that has been seen form to different walks of life. That could make the difference in guilty or not guilty. Also giving a better chance of the truth to be found, and that is the real reason of a trail to find out what really happened. Right?
    I would like to see the jury members being chosen by education level. At least an high school education with some understanding of the laws. That's my take on it.
     
  2. Kadijah

    Kadijah Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,265
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    Everytime a cop kills a civilian or is simply brought up on charges for whateva, he asks for a bench trial, i.e., let the judge decide. In almost every bench trial (where a cop is the defendant), the judge finds in favor of the cop. This even works when the cop has aggressed against a white person. Black folk? Wow!

    In other words, leave the jury system be.


    P.S.
    Remember the big, burly white cop who was caught on tape beating the unholy crap out of the petite white waitress - had to hold her in a headlock as he pummeled her face and beat her body swinging around like a rag doll as he punched.... otherwise with the first punch the tiny woman would have gone flying 50 feet into the wall? He asked for a bench trail. The judge found him "Not Guilty."

    Read about a white cop in a white suburb who while drinking drunk, ran over a young white boy on his bicycle IN the bicycle lane. Cops refused to give him a breath analyzer test until the next day. He asked for a bench trial and was found "Not Guilty."
     
  3. crissy27

    crissy27 Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +16
    I think jury members should be in a separate room with no visual contact with the defendant or plaintiff. They would only be able to hear the testimony and read documents/evidence pertaining to the case. To get around identifying race/gender by voice, maybe some sort of voice disguise can be used...like they do when trying to conceal a person's identity.

    I know it sounds out there, but I see this as the only real way of having a jury that simply judges a trial objectively and render a verdict based solely on the presenting facts. Other than that, then, going by the current trend...I would have to say they're becoming a tad useless..thus unecessary.
     
  4. Kadijah

    Kadijah Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,265
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    NO jury renders a verdict based solely on the facts. No attorney worth his/her salt would EVER pick so soulless a jury. EVERY attorney picks jurors who are EMOTIONALLY biased in their client's favor (or against in the case of the prosecutor). Add to a fact that I've even said myself: "Move over. You're in the way! I can't hear what she's saying if I can't see her!"

    In other words, I don't care how sweetly a person says a thing, if there's a sneer on their face when they say it, it changes the perception.
     
  5. butterfly#1

    butterfly#1 going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,204
    I see what you're saying......make Justice truly blind.
     
  6. Asomfwaa

    Asomfwaa Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,564
    In some parts of Africa, the idea was the Elders, whom themselves grew up observing their Elders for several years, would council with one another over the different verdicts passed and render a verdict to whatever case set before them.

    In American Law, the Lawyers observe the different verdicts passed (laws and rulings) but not objectively and cooperatively but subjectively and competitively. The Lawyers then bring the issue before jurors, people outside of the Law profession and the Lawyers and the Judge tell the Jury the different past verdicts and essentially inform the jurors on how to rule. The jurors for the most part rule according to the Lawyers' and Judges' instructions. In this way they seem unnecessary.

    Yet, in America, the state is oftentimes attempting to use the legal system to falsely condemn a person against the state. In these circumstances, the jury is the only safeguard against unreasonable and unchallenged state-sanctioned abuse. For this reason, it's better to maintain this only defense than to destroy it and put White Power that much closer to absolute rule.
     
  7. Kadijah

    Kadijah Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,265
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    The subject is "juries," i.e., jury trials vs bench trials.
     
  8. Kadijah

    Kadijah Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,265
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    Irrelevant. Everyone reading knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about.... the very same thing the OP is referring to.

    Then why did you tag onto my post about BENCH trials?

    And it's still irrelevant.
     
  9. Kadijah

    Kadijah Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,265
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    Your "scope" is OFF TOPIC and your answer remains IRRELEVANT!

    Next time you want to show how "clever" you are, tag onto the post of someone else. Or try something "revolutionary" like not trying to piggyback on the thoughts of others and composing a post and letting it stand on its own merits. This Strawman Argument :bs: is getting OLD! :rolleyes:
     
  10. Kadijah

    Kadijah Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,265
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +2,952

    :Zzz:
     
Loading...