" ... by a jury of his peers."

[PonderBee]

The Michael Jackson trial being in full-swing I imagined myself sitting in the courtroom as a juror (bizarre scene). The jury of MJ's peers was selected based on residency. What would you consider to be the most important element in determining one's peers if society were to attempt to gather actual peers?

edited to acknowledge this thread is misplaced in this section
- was unintentional :huh:

[Shai Gar]

this gets me thinking, would a jury of my peers be a jury of INTP people?

cause that would rock

[Claverhouse]

this gets me thinking, would a jury of my peers be a jury of INTP people?

cause that would rock
Not necessarily.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[PonderBee]

this gets me thinking, would a jury of my peers be a jury of INTP people?

cause that would rock
Exactly what went through my head - an INTP jury would make sense.
However, a jury made up entirely of people of another personality trait would be troublesome/unfair - at least for me. Another option might be to require that there be at least x # of a particular type.

[songbird36]

Well it used to mean a jury comprised solely of *men* (until relatively recently).
I don't think the term "peers" was ever intended to suggest that the jury should be drawn from people of the same type (such as race, social standing, age or whatever).

It is simply a jury of a cross section of community members (in this country however, usually housewives and the unemployed).

[Claverhouse]

Not at all. That was never true. Peers means equals, in social standing, status, rank etc.; not age, but an Earl had to be judged by a panel composed of lords ( although originally equal ranking lords --- eg: Earls ); a miller by craftsmen; a peasant by peasants. Neither a higher-ranking person could be selected ( intimidation ), nor a lower-ranking person ( envy ).

Women were impanelled until at least the 18th century; I imagine particularly when the accused was a woman. This may or may not have always been to her advantage.

Personally I think only the unemployed should be used, both as jurors and magistrates. O/W it takes people away from work unwillingly ( and sometimes whinging about it, which they may take out on the accused ) whilst it gives the unemployed something useful to do, with expenses paid.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Strictly speaking, only financial experts should be called to judge financial fraud: most people ( including myself ) have no idea what is going on. ]

[songbird36]

Well it could be different in the UK. Here it was always men.

[Claverhouse]

Naturally. New Zealand was colonised during a civilised phase in western Europe.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ But until the last few years at least, any peer ( in the secondary sense of aristocrat ) here could demand to be tried for any capital crime, at least, by the whole House of Lords ( of forlorn memory ). Same in any state with an aristocracy. ]

[ And until the abolition of capital punishment, he could also demand a silken rope. ]

[Claverhouse]

In Mr. Jackson's case he could therefore demand a jury composed of perverted pop-stars who are also millionaires.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

I heard the jury was all white?

[PonderBee]

Not all white - white, hispanic and asian. There are no blacks on the jury and MJ voiced concern over this fact. Here in the US juries are selected by residency. MJ has a low percentage of African American neighbors.

[PsiKik]

How about a legal system with a new kind of legal professional - a career juror.
In this system a career juror would be someone who would have a training in legal, crime and forensic issues. Perhaps a 3 year university degree. Nothing as intense as a lawyers training, but just enough to provide someone better able to make a decision than a joe public.

[Shai Gar]

i would be constantly voting for innocent

[PonderBee]

How about a legal system with a new kind of legal professional - a career juror.
In this system a career juror would be someone who would have a training in legal, crime and forensic issues. Perhaps a 3 year university degree. Nothing as intense as a lawyers training, but just enough to provide someone better able to make a decision than a joe public.
More people working for the government?! Even though they'd be sitting on their asses all day a good 10% would find a way to be declared permanently disabled due to work injuries; another 20% would show up, kiss ass and do absolutely nothing; the next 20% would be supervisors/managers and not be expected to do anything; that leaves 50% and that's not enough for a quorum.

[Geoff]

I heard the jury was all white?

Which therefore matches Michael's skin type? :whistle:

-Geoff

[PsiKik]

More people working for the government?! Even though they'd be sitting on their asses all day a good 10% would find a way to be declared permanently disabled due to work injuries; another 20% would show up, kiss ass and do absolutely nothing; the next 20% would be supervisors/managers and not be expected to do anything; that leaves 50% and that's not enough for a quorum.

Ok then, how about doing away with juries altogether? This would be great because all the people that would have been doing jury duty would now be at work.
Just let the judge make the decision.

Even better, how about having a system where the arresting officer(s) can also pass sentence. Great way to make a smaller government( no more judges ) and less need for pesky stuff like civil rights, which is all pinko-socialist BS anyway.

[Lee]

Ok then, how about doing away with juries altogether? This would be great because all the people that would have been doing jury duty would now be at work.
Just let the judge make the decision.

Even better, how about having a system where the arresting officer(s) can also pass sentence. Great way to make a smaller government( no more judges ) and less need for pesky stuff like civil rights, which is all pinko-socialist BS anyway.

Ah, finally someone who understands...;)

[PonderBee]

Ok then, how about doing away with juries altogether? This would be great because all the people that would have been doing jury duty would now be at work.
Just let the judge make the decision.

Even better, how about having a system where the arresting officer(s) can also pass sentence. Great way to make a smaller government( no more judges ) and less need for pesky stuff like civil rights, which is all pinko-socialist BS anyway.
I'll give the jury system in the US a passing grade. I've been a juror twice (1 civil, 1 criminal) and I can say that, overall, I was satisfied with the other jurors. In the US a defendant can choose trial by jury or judge, and in many US states a judge can throw out the jury's decision (so why bother in the first place?). There are a few cops out there that will accept the payment of fine on the spot ;)

[Shai Gar]

PsiKik. i am hiring you as my Minister of Justice when i take over australia

[Architectonic]

PsiKik. i am hiring you as my Minister of Justice when i take over australia

/me makes emergency plans to move to New Zealand, just in case.. ;P

[Shai Gar]

yeah you better. because i am thinking about starting a list for the purges. esfjs are at the top of that list

[Claverhouse]

Ok then, how about doing away with juries altogether? This would be great because all the people that would have been doing jury duty would now be at work.
Just let the judge make the decision.

Even better, how about having a system where the arresting officer(s) can also pass sentence. Great way to make a smaller government( no more judges ) and less need for pesky stuff like civil rights, which is all pinko-socialist BS anyway.
The soviets had Troikas ( in those rather frequent periods when civil justice couldn't sit ): three wise men --- sometimes including soviet free womanhood --- who prosecuted, defended, judged all in one go.

[ you were lucky if you got 7 years; unlucky if you got 15 years; and if you were really unlucky... ]



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

The jury system is certainly less than ideal. The need for a unanimous verdict here can mean that juries are hung and a mistrial declared. Jurors are often bullied by the foreman and/or other jury members to "fall into line".

The worst problem is that juries tend to be comprised of less intelligent people because the intelligent people cannot get time off work to serve, and consequently far too much time is spent by lawyers and judges explaining what may seem like simple concepts to a jury.

This is a huge problem in commercial jury trials or fraud trials where juries are presented with a huge amount of complex financial information that they are incapable of understanding.

The system is due for an overhaul here and the Law Society has made recommendations.

[Claverhouse]

Well, the French (http://www.justice.gouv.fr/anglais/europe/aintroju.htm) have always managed without juries. You could change from the Common Law to the Code Napoleone.

Although case law has already destroyed most common law in actuality, anyway. Not to mention legislative edicts, which never stop coming.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

Yes I suppose we could have a whole debate about the pros and cons of the adversarial justice system, and the truth falling somewhere between the respective positions of the parties.

Any system is flawed. Is it the best we could do? I'm not sure. I tend to think a mixture of adversarial/inquisitorial is the way to go, but I'm not exactly sure how this would work. I'll give it some thought and post something later.

[Claverhouse]

Yes I suppose we could have a whole debate about the pros and cons of the adversarial justice system, and the truth falling somewhere between the respective positions of the parties.

Any system is flawed. Is it the best we could do? I'm not sure. I tend to think a mixture of adversarial/inquisitorial is the way to go, but I'm not exactly sure how this would work. I'll give it some thought and post something later.
Have you ever read Robert van Gulik's Judge Dee series ? Seems ideal, provided you are Judge Dee and not one of his suspects.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

No I haven't. I guess you've seen "12 Angry Men" - the 1957 movie that was a fascinating first insight into the Machiavellian plotting inside a jury.

In the movie a poor young Puerto Rican boy is charged with murder and the jury has to decide whether to send him to the chair. A lot of the issues around the jury system were touched on in that movie.

[Eileen]

I love 12 Angry Men. :D Excellent film.


I was looking at a MAD magazine today, and there was this funny "letter from Michael Jackson" which said something about a jury of his peers and how they'd all have to be "Afro-Caucasian germ-phobic elven mutants" or something like that.