Trial by jury

Yes, The lawyers on both sides and the judges have a say in jury exclusion. The part where I jump off board is where they ultimately have to agree on a jury. This implies discretion and makes it highly fallible An ideal jury selection system is one that has the least discretion while also excluding as many biased parties in the selection process as possible. This is why I think my system is superior. I may be true that jury selection might ultimately come down to discretion, But in my system, The jurors are being selected by people who have no idea what case they're going to be on. You could claim that such a system would be corruptible, But the same would be true of your system, So I still win out on that front due to the lack of bias in my system. You mention professional juries not being juries of our peers. I would have to stop you right here and ask why it is necessary that the jurors be our peers? I understand this is part of the constitution, But logically speaking, When practical benefit does it offer? You made a comment about juries being trained in the same way as judges. I don't think this is necessary. Juries only need to how to vote on the evidence. Judges require much more knowledge about court proceedings that would be a waste of time to teach jurors. I think a jury of people trained to act impartially is ideal. Any problem that can be said of mine can be said of yours, But mine has an apparent benefit that yours doesn't have. You said "The problem is there are people who won't take jury duty seriously. There are people who can't help but give away their biases and prejudices. These are largely the people that are filtered out with this. People who won't take it seriously or will clearly vote one way or another. " This might be true, But it's true for both of us. Both systems could have lazy or apathetic jurors and both systems can take the same measures to weed them out. Furthermore, My system doesn't select jurors randomly, So it's not filled with a lottery of people who are less likely to want to be there. The people being trained as professional jurors will be there because they want to be there. You say that professional jurors are far more likely to be bought off? I'm gonna need you to explain this to me. Because I don't really see how it would be any easier than a regular jury. We can take all the same measures that we take I a court room, So why would they be less likely to be bribed simply because they're random? I'm definitely not simply asserting that professional juries are better. I've given practical reasons as to why it would be justifiable to believe that this is the case. Professional juries can have all of the safety guards except for the random selection. I cannot see practical benefit in random selection. Really I'm just arguing to fix a glaring whole in the selection system. I'm not looking to overhaul the whole process. It may not be the jury's fault per se if a bad verdict is rendered, However, People involved in the selection process bear some responsibility in the matter. If a lawyer with an agenda picks a bad juror veto simply to win their case, Then they are acting immorally in my opinion and don't deserve to practice law. A lawyer should stick up for their client, But they should do it using a good jury. Any system that allows a lawyer to exercise their agenda freely on a jury is flawed in my eyes. I never said that jury's had to pass the bar to work. That's why I said It was unnecessary for them to have judge level training. What we need isn't highly educated juries, We need experienced juries. Anyone who studies a career and then enters it will tell you that you learn the most important parts of your specialty on the job. This applies to juries as well, Albeit on a faster time frame. You said "Someone is picking the juries. If it isn't lawyers on both sides who cancel out each other's biases it is a group of lawyers in a dark room in a government building picking which professional jurors will be on the jury" I don't mean to pick at you, But this is nothing more than an appeal to fear. You SAY that the professional juries will necessarily be picked by corrupt people in a secret room, But you have no way to know that and it's far from the only possibility. There's all kinds of safeguards that can be put in place during the hiring process. Like I said, Your system would be just as fallible as mine, But mine would be more reliable since we're not selecting random citizens. You say the judge is impartial and then turn around and say that he's really biased, But it doesn't matter. I think it does matter. Judges decide what evidence is allowed in the court room and that evidence is the only thing the jury is allowed to use to make a verdict. Judges decide sentencing after the fact. For a person who seem to fear being taken over by government control, You seem oddly un phased the concept of a judge applying their bias in the courtroom. You said "You, On the other hand, Are saying that 1 person will have full access to which jurors get selected for which case" I don't really think that the jury has to necessarily be selected by one person. There are many different approaches that could be taken to the hiring process to ensure as little bias as possible. For instance, We could have between 1 to 3 people who are responsible for each respective seat on the jury. Think of them like districts. This would split the selection process so hard that nobody could every bribe an entire jury. Maybe one juror if they're infinitely lucky. You made a comment about jurors getting complaints from people who are their bosses? They don't have to have bosses in the sense that you posit. They could have ineffectual supervisors who are only there for outsider perspective. We don't have to give any person sole hiring or firing power over them and it can be handled via committee to rule out corruption. Honestly, I think you worry about corruption too much. Not to sound dismissive, But I don't find it to be as big of a problem as you. I think corruption is stopped by improving the system, Not getting hung up over who might abuse it. Better system equals less abuse right? I'm not sure what you mean by all or nothing. My position is one of improvement, Not replacement. I'm trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here. "1. Who pays for them? 2. Their bosses can pressure them. 3. The selection of them is still biased. 4. Are there enough? " The government pays in both of our systems, This is a fact. Juries don't have to have boss pressure, That's just feeding into the idea that everyone has to have a boss in the traditional sense. The selection is much less bias in my system, So that's an improvement, And I don't know what you mean by the last one. Your floor