With a country full of racist assholes, jury pools are bound to be infiltrated. But I would no more trust a panel of permanent judges with such a decision.

Bottom line is that we're are fucked either way.

There needs to be an overhaul of how juries are seated.

the jury selection process allows for gaming the system --results in unjust outcomes all the time. The selection process weeds out everyone that you'd want on juries, like people with college educations. Sleazeball lawyers especially love it.

Americans need to know how vulnerable they are to this.

It would be far better to do away with juries than to let this go on.

I had to go get my son from work and on my way back, I thought, "Shit, they'll lock the thread as Meta."

and go back to 12.

Kind of like the supreme court, just on a smaller scale.

Elected or appointed? Because either way opens a another can of worms.

With modern drugs and brain wave scanners (and even MORE modern ways to find out the truth), this antiquated disgusting run-down
barbaric pile of tin can junk has got to go go go...

Christ people this is 2013. Let's act like it.

So basically, you're for torture. Awesome.

Do you read. Do you have any knowledge on modern brain-wave scans or science or the fact that we can tell how a human brain is operating at a certain time....that it's possible ...even now...to tell if a person is bi-polar and a host of other illnesses without hardly talking to them or touching them.

I'm not talking about silly lie detecting or any such crap.
I'm talking about updating and advancing out ability to positively tell what a person is thinking.
You don't think that that is preferable to having a pack of human beings trying to give an accurate account of an act when they have (maybe) 20 percent of the truth.???

If someone is guilty of a crime, I want to KNOW for sure the person is guilty...not have 6-12 ugly bags of water try to make up their minds what constitutes reality.

Unless you're a Lawyer and see how this would make your job at risk...

We're not there yet. We're not even close.

...his brain "thinks" is the correct speech pattern.

Look...I don't know a lot about these new findings but my Doctor friend does and he says they are exciting as hell.
You know how it's possible to scan a brain in layers ?..Sure you do...
Those Layers line up a certain way when a person's speech is saying what his brain is REALLY saying.
I think it's damn cool and frankly if I was accused of a crime in ??10 years?? and this system was perfected, I say
Hell yeah...scan me so I can go home and you cops can try to find the REAL person who did it.

No bail bullshit
No Lawyer fees

I like It !

and this is leaving aside the whole 5th Amendment aspect of it.

It doesn't affect me personally anyway. I'm an Australian Citizen..I can leave this ..ah...place anytime I want.

though I'd have some significant ethical concerns about it's potential for abuse. In any case "my system" is still the best of a bad lot available at this time, so I suspect they'll stick with it.

The jury syatem is the fairest way....it brings the people into the process.

Random selection of citizens to sit on the jury is about as close to a true democracy than you can get. Sure they will have politics from all over the spectrum but that's what makes it democratic and equal.

I've come to realize how complex the law is. There's a lot of nuance and the terminology is just not always intuitive for the lay person. So, yeah, sometimes I've thought that maybe we should have "professional" juries just for that reason because I don't know if any jury instruction is enough to really get people to grasp some of this stuff. Even for those of us who would really WANT to do a good job, I think it would still be difficult.

HOWEVER, I don't see how that could not end up being abused and a bad thing. It would take away the whole "jury of your peers" which I think is really important. If these are people paid by the state, I don't see how they wouldn't end up being on the side of the state and I do not think that is a good thing.

But that being said, I do think trying some of these cases is asking an awful lot of a group of random people.

I don't know of a better system however so until I discover that better system I will have to say no.

She sounded like a fuckn moron when it came to "facts". That woman didn't know what the hell she was talking about. She couldn't even remember witnesses names (and mentally constructed a composite of the defense examiner and the war vet).

These are the people deciding subjective cases?

My biggest problem with it is that it ignores social/group dynamics. Anyone that knows anything about social/group dynamics knows that in any group there will be one person that, if given the time and opportunity, will control the actions of the group. So if that one person has an agenda/bias, then evidence be damned, you get what we got ... 3 or 4 of 6 initially vote to convict on something (either 2nd degree or manslaughter), becomes an not guilty verdict.

I sometimes think that there may be a use for having para-professional jurors. If both the defense and prosecutors would agree in individual, complex cases, it might make sense.

Some are the most arrogant, abusive and condescending assholes who ever looked into a mirror. Still, even with them, their demeanor markedly changes when a jury walks in. It's as if the windows flew open and the judges and other permanent court factotum realize their power is not absolute and must be shared.

But the general concept of the jury system is fine. Or at least the best we can do.

and maybe military court martials. I can't remember how many members there are for a general court martial.

best way to avoid jail is don't get arrested

The right to a jury trial has existed since 1215. That's an awful lot of historical precedent to throw away. Of course, some would argue that it's an antiquated system that should be abolished, but I'd rather have 12 people sitting in judgment than a judge who was probably a political appointee.

Here's Amendment VI:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

...just because you dislike the result of one trial.