An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Why John Doe Should Not Decide About Legal Matters
Although I understand, respect and even appreciate the thoughts behind the jury system, I’m not a big fan of it. I think that ‘John Doe’ isn’t capable of making important legal decisions, quite simply because he lacks the knowledge to do so…
14 Responses to “Why John Doe Should Not Decide About Legal Matters”
With all of its weaknesses I still believe that the Jury system is better than any alternatives.
It is closer to guaranteeing the neutralization of political and personal retribution.
One can agree that someone did in fact break the law while also supporting leniency.
What would be the alternative to the jury system??
To paraphrase Churchill, the jury system is the worst of all systems of justice…except for all of the others that have been tried.
And an actual quote from Churchill:
Of course when you hear about dumb verdicts or dumb commentary from jurists, it’s natural to doubt the system, and again that’s similar to doubting democracy itself. On that, one last quote which may or may not be from WC:
This is truly a bad idea.
I quite agree with Paul and Winnie that while the jury system has flaws, it works. And has worked extraordinarily well for over 200 years.
Yes, you will have the occasional Sob Sister juror who will have second thoughts, but there are checks and balances built into the system. These include a jury selection process where lawyers for both sides and the judge have ample room to select a representative jury and rules of procedure that give the judge ample grounds for dismissing a juror or, in extremely rare cases, an entire “rogue” jury.
Yeah because the Dutch system works horribly doesn’t it? O…wait…
The jury system isn’t the most bullet proof system. Every system has flaws indeed, just one system a bit more than the other.
The sad truth is that non-professionals are more likely to be influenced by rhetorical tricks.
Michael,
Libby was convicted so you want the whole jury system thrown out?
I don’t see what’s wrong with the jury’s decision. Should there not be consequences for impeding a Federal investigation? The man lied to cover for his bosses. If he wanted to tell the truth, then he could have and he wouldn’t be in this situation now.
MvdG: Can you explain how the Dutch system works? I think the point in the Churchill quote I wrote earlier is vitally important: trial by peers prevents abuse of power by the government. If there’s some other way to include that safeguard, I just can’t think of what it is. I purposely also made the comparison to democracy in general, because in both cases you have invested power in the people in order to check against authoritarianism; and in both cases we sometimes wonder if the people are worthy but generally we assume that the good outweighs the bad.
Second what everyone else has said…but if I were wrongly charged I sure wouldn’t want to put my fate in a jury’s hands. I’d hope that I got a reasonable judge (everyone involved knows who they are — a few judges are borderline crazy) so I could waive my right to a jury trial.
As noted in the comments on your own blog, Michael, the juror is not having second thoughts. She believes he committed the crimes with which he was charged. That’s the juror’s only role in the system, to make that determination. Whether the larger “interests of justice” would be better served by a conviction or an acquittal is not part of the juror’s job. So it’s entirely consistent for her to vote to convict, because she is convinced he willfully lied under oath, but also want to see him pardoned because she believes he was a scapegoat.
Me, I don’t think he willfully lied, but I wasn’t on the jury and didn’t hear all the evidence.
And that’s the crucial thing, going to your point about the average joe lacking the knowledge to make the bigger decisions. The jurors are asked to consider only the legally relevant, admissible evidence in making their decision. Over the course of the last several centuries, the rules of evidence have been developed to ensure that jurors do not make decisions based on irrelevant but emotionally powerful facts, but only facts that actually bean on whether or not the individual committed the crime. The juror is not supposed to be making political calls and political judgments, just factual ones.
In fact, it is the jurors, and only the jurors, who have ALL the knowledge necessary to resolve the case (assuming both sides’ attorneys do a proper job).
The area that I can agree with Michael about is civil trials that might involve highly technical issues, even more than evidentiary testimony in a criminal trial. This would include lawsuits concerning patent and copyright or medical issues.
Well it’s my understanding that the the jury isn’t really there to make legal decisions, but rather, to make sensible ones. The jury is supposed to provide protection against unjust law which is why we have jury nullification.
I watched one an interview of one of the Libby jurors the other night. She came across as careful, thoughtful, and empathetic. This jury took 10 days or 5 times as long as Libby’s defense, to deliberately go over the evidence. No one had an agenda-they were just there to do the job that needed to be done. I came away quite impressed with the juror’s ability to separate the facts of the case from rhetoric: for example this juror felt sympathy for Libby, but was not swayed by Welles’ dramatic performance at the end, when he begged the jury to give Libby back to his wife and children.
So, I do have confidence in the jury system. Like everything else it is imperfect. What makes anyone think that perfect justice exists in this world? That a judge would be less biased than a jury? Judges hand down ridiculously lenient or harsh sentences every day, or make terrible decisions based on personal bias.
Michael:
Many people serve ably on American juries who are so-called non-professionals. It is insulting to assert that a carpenter or dairy farmer is less able to determine guilt, innocence, punishment and compensation than a college professor or computer engineer.
There is a reason that the Constitution states “a jury of his peers” and not “a jury of really smart people who think they are better than others.”
I don’t even buy into Jim S’s view that a highly technical case might require a special jury. The system does not and should not work that way.
I was a defendant in a libel trial stemming from a medical malpractice case that the newspaper that I worked for had reported on. Much of the testimony was highly technical.
It was the job of the expert witnesses, with some help from lawyers, to make clear to the jurors what was in play. The jury foreman was the manager of a Burger King and many of the jurors were non-professions. They (pardon the term) acquitted themselves well.
There are problems with the jury system, as there are problems with the entire system of court trials. Jury selection has bred a class of professional advisors. Lawyers are as much dramatic actors and logic twisters as experts on law.
The performance by jurors depends a great deal on their intelligence, in that they have to deeply understand and accept the difference between the law and the desired result. Not an easy distiction to uphold, even for Mensa types.
Having professional jury panels has been said to invite corruption. Since the jurors are known over a long period of time, they become easy to approach with bribes.
True. Our system is lousy. But what’s the answer?
I think the jury system is the best alternative we have. I would trust a jury over a judge anyday. But it would be good to cut down on the number of frivolous civil suits. Maybe it should be a misdemeanor to file a frivolous suit.