Comments on I think it's finally time to seriously consider 'professional juries' . . .

Go to From The Observation DeckAdd a commentGo to I think it's finally time to seriously consider 'professional juries' . . .

Re:

Very good and valid points, Krisles, and I do agree. But it seems to me that, no matter what kind of 'improvements' they may make to the overall system, the average citizen would probably still rather not serve on a jury! Like I wrote, I too have first-hand experience with this 'system,' and yes, a jury of ones peers is what justice is supposed to be all about. However, like I also wrote, if my county moved the courthouse to a nicer location, I probably wouldn't even worry about it! I do have an ulterior motive . . .   

posted by JimmyA on January 30, 2015 at 5:54 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

Them too, Vermont, them too . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 30, 2015 at 5:49 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

You've heard that, Vermont? Well, believe it or not, Hoboken is not all that far from Elizabeth, and most of it does fall into that 'arm pit' category. Newark, Jersey City, the Ironbound Section . . . all of them are considered to be a part of the 'industrial centers,' and are not the cleanest or friendliest places to live, or visit! It's a shame that most people around the country think all of New Jersey is like that, but there are some very nice areas, usually further south or west . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 30, 2015 at 5:49 AM | link to this | reply

Re: jimmy

I have a feeling, jean, that's probably what happened. I would assume that a 'senior citizen' would get special dispensation. Your age is your "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, no pun intended . . .  

posted by JimmyA on January 30, 2015 at 5:44 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thanks, Kabu. They're well appreciated . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 30, 2015 at 5:42 AM | link to this | reply

This is interesting to me, reading your post and all the comments....in my prior life I sat in on quite a few law suits that had gone to trial and sat with our attorneys through voir dires, a fascinating process...a few times involving professional jury consultants.  I would never be in favor of professional juries.  A jury of your peers is the cornerstone of our legal system...always has been and always will be if we hope to maintain freedom in any form.  All the problems that could ensue have been barely hinted at by others here.

So, shouldn't we attack the obstacles instead of the system......make sure you are actually getting a jury of your "peers".....make jury duty something a jury member can comfortably do, by guaranteeing legally their position and status at work......provide financial compensation equal to their regular pay......providing anything necessary for safety.....etc,etc.  And so many things about our legal system need to be overhauled, stream-lined, brought back to basics.  

We need to use mediation, arbitration much more....that's a good place for professional help....not on juries.  I'm saying we keep changing the wrong thing in modern life and things just keep getting worse.......IMHO.

posted by Krisles on January 29, 2015 at 6:24 PM | link to this | reply

 Oops... they have disgusting cities.

posted by Vermont01 on January 29, 2015 at 5:48 PM | link to this | reply

 Isn't it amazing that the so called ''wealthy states'' like Connecticut and New Jersey

 have so many discusting cities. Although, I heard Hoboken is the place to be.

posted by Vermont01 on January 29, 2015 at 5:45 PM | link to this | reply

jimmy

you make a good argument for professional juries, i have never thought about it before but it sounds good to me.

the last time i was called i forgot to show up.  my friends said that they probably had a warrant out for my arrest.  i will probably never know unless i get stopped for something.  they probably looked at my birth date and figured out what happened, i have  not got another notice to be on a jury they probably figured i would not show up.

posted by jeansaw on January 29, 2015 at 4:11 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re:

I do understand dear friend. Hugs...

posted by Kabu on January 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM | link to this | reply

Re:

I believe, Gheeghee, that, at least here in New Jersey, prospective jurors are selected based on voter registration. But I've also heard that either some states, or soon all states, will use people's driver's licenses for the selection process too. Again, no one I know wants to be a part of it, and that's probably the only thing professional juries would alleviate. But it's okay if you're also opposed to the idea. I don't think anyone will attempt to get it off the ground anyway . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:38 AM | link to this | reply

Re: JimmyA

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:34 AM | link to this | reply

Re: JimmyA

And I guess that, Sir Wiley, could be considered both good news and bad news. Bad because of your health, but good that you won't have to endure such a trying ( no pun intended ) experience! Believe me, no matter which side of the jury box you may be sitting on, it's no fun at all, for anyone . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:33 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

I understand completely, chuck. Most people don't know the law as well as they probably should, and it's very easy to base your judgment on personal feelings or bias as opposed to the actual evidence presented during the case! That would probably still hold true for a 'professional' jury, but their knowledge of the law could make the difference . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:31 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re:

Yeah, that's true too, Kabu. Like I wrote, I know it's a part of everyone's 'civic duty,' like voting, but everyone seems to go through it begrudgingly. You've read my book, so you know the nightmare I was forced to endure with the entire process. Like I told Naut, I know part of my reason was personal, trying to keep my poor wife from having to drive to such a city, but I can't think of any other way to keep those citizens who would rather not deal with jury duty from ever having to go to that place! I don't think it really matters. I haven't heard anyone talking about 'professional juries' lately anyway . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:28 AM | link to this | reply

Re: JimmyA

Professionally indeed, Bill. Can I take that as a vote for . . . ? 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:22 AM | link to this | reply

Re: I think a professional jury would become inured to the process and

You're absolutely right, Pat. I see your points completely. I was already aware that there probably would be pros & cons to such a system. However, like I chronicled in my book "The Hindering," I had the misfortune of being a part of the 'jury selection' process, and I saw first-hand what both the prosecutors and my defense lawyer went through to select that 'perfect' jury, and there's nothing scarier than knowing that your fate is in the hands ( and minds ) of 12 perfect strangers who know absolutely nothing about you! I know that would probably be the same case with a professional jury, but at least their experience and knowledge of the law could help in the overall process. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the 'average' citizen would still rather not be a part of it! There's got to be a way to make that work . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:22 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Jimmy

I had a feeling, Naut, that you would be opposed to this! That's okay. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and your reasons. I still say this could work, but like I wrote, I must admit my main catalyst for even thinking this was because of where our county courthouse is located. Believe me, if it was in a nicer area, and a lot closer, I probably wouldn't have put as much thought into this idea at all. Yes, my 'primary' reason for even suggesting this is somewhat biased because I don't think 'the authorities' are willing to address the jurors safety. It's just a scary situation overall . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:14 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

It could be, FSI. I think it's certainly worth a try. I'm not sure how the court system would now go about trying to implement this, but like I wrote, in the long run, it would save a lot of people a lot of aggravation . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:08 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

Just from your writing, TAPS, I can see further proof of a 'disgruntled citizen' who would rather have not had to deal with jury duty! In fact, I've known several people ( family, friends and co-workers ) who had been called to jury duty at least once, and not one of them had anything positive to say about it! I think it may be time . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:06 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

That actually sounds, C C T, like an oft used plot to various show and movies dealing with juries. In fact, that was the main emphasis behind the plot of the movie "Twelve Angry Men." Who knows what may have happened if those jurors were 'professionals' . . . 

posted by JimmyA on January 29, 2015 at 7:03 AM | link to this | reply

I also do not agree with professional juries, but it would be nice if courts around the country would utilize a truly random selection process, then you wouldn't have repeat selections for jury duty.

posted by Gheeghee on January 28, 2015 at 9:04 PM | link to this | reply

JimmyA

I'm excused from jury duty because of health reasons my friend.

posted by WileyJohn on January 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM | link to this | reply

JimmyA

I'm excused from jury duty because of health reasons my friend.

posted by WileyJohn on January 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM | link to this | reply

I have called more than once but never made it to the final jury selection. I am thrilled about that as I don't like to be a jury. I have mo expertise in law and have no interest in judging others.

posted by Chuck_E_Ibrahim on January 28, 2015 at 2:59 PM | link to this | reply

Re:

LOL for CCT yes I remember Hancock's half hour...though not that episode.

I hate the thought of Jury duty but I think it is like voting, something a citizen should do. Judged by your peers it says...not by would be lawyers... and the pay is so poor the first thing professionals would want is big pay rises and retainers for when they weren't working and all the perks that Gov. employees always get, AND most dangerous, be more likely to be open to bribes.

posted by Kabu on January 28, 2015 at 1:26 PM | link to this | reply

JimmyA

Professionally speaking Jimmy. BC-A, Bill’s RTTst

posted by BC-A on January 28, 2015 at 1:12 PM | link to this | reply

I think a professional jury would become inured to the process and

grow complacent or biased, as happens in public sector bureaucracies. I also think the lawyers would - since they choose the jurors - find ways to tip the scales of justice in their favor if they know the jury pool. But the big factor is the naive eye of the ordinary citizen, who comes into the process seeing everything new. I think s/he's much better at sizing up what's going on from a fresh perspective. I've seen a lot of second-guessing done by people based on media reports - and I'm pretty sure the media does not see all the evidence the jury sees. The media's object is not to seek justice, but to attract a TV audience or sell papers.

posted by Pat_B on January 28, 2015 at 10:24 AM | link to this | reply

Jimmy

I was called once, and it was a damned inconvenience, though the courthouse is only five minutes away by car, and it's in good neighbourhood - my own. But inconvenient as it was, I didn't mind - it's one of the things we have to be prepared to do in our society! I never made it to the trial - I was rejected by the defence lawyer, who had probably expected different answers to his questions from someone of my professional background, LOL...

But I am absolutely opposed to the notion of a 'professional jury'! To explain the reasons for my position would take a lot more time and space than a mere comment section!

The lack of safety for potential jury members in Elizabeth is something that should be addressed, of course, and it can be, if the authorities are capable and willing...

posted by Nautikos on January 28, 2015 at 9:01 AM | link to this | reply

I feel the same way as you do, Jimmy. I would also like to add that a professional jury would not be so prone to falling for lawyer B.S. There are plenty of lawyers out there who know how to pull the heartstrings of those inexperienced with the law. That would be practically eliminated with a professional jury.

posted by FormerStudentIntern on January 28, 2015 at 8:22 AM | link to this | reply

I was on a jury once.  Didn't like it.  Felt guilty about finding the man guilty even though there was overwhelming evidence.  Other times my bosses from three different jobs got me off due to the type of work I was doing.  The last one I was made happy when at the last minute the person pled guilty and no jury was needed.  I was very pleased when I got old enough that I could just refuse due to age.  I've never considered the idea of professional juries before.  Interesting.

posted by TAPS. on January 28, 2015 at 8:04 AM | link to this | reply

Goodness Jimmy  I used to dread being called although it was only 12 miles away and at that time respectable. I am sure professional folk would do a better job. I remember A sketch. I bet our Kabu remembers it/ Hancock' half hour. He was called for jury service, all the jurors voted the ruffian guilty as he was obviously. Except for Hancock he kept on and on and eventually one or two of the jurors sided with him it went on for days and they all got so fed up that they agreed that the ruffian was innocent. The all breathed a sigh of relief and thought they could give a verdict and clutter off. Of course then Hancock changed his mind and said he thought he might be guilty.

 

posted by C_C_T on January 28, 2015 at 7:47 AM | link to this | reply