Trial by jury

1. There probably aren't any completely impartial unbiased people out there, But no systemic change would alleviate that problem. Lawyers on both sides agree to a jury selection. If my memory is correct, They can remove several jurors with no reason, But they can only do this so many times. Eventually a jury is agreed upon by both sides. The defense, And the prosecution. None of these problems are alleviated with a 'professional jury. ' Someone at some agency is selecting these people, Or a board of people. Those people would have biases, Could be paid off, Et cetera to select among a group they have infinitely more information on. On top of that, Traveling professionals would not be a jury of their peers as much as people from similar states, Counties, Et cetera. If an environmental case comes up, People from that county should be on the jury, Not people from two states over. 2. The reason I bring up Judges is that they essentially are the MOST trained professionals in this field. What I envision when you say "professional jury" is a jury comprised of people who are essentially judges. That is the best possible case scenario that could happen from your stance, Am I incorrect? If it is any less than that, There is even more likelihood they will be just as biased as others. If you can show that judges are not as biased or prejudiced as jurors, Or their rulings are more 'effective' you may have a point. If judges are as or more biased, Then you have no point and a group of judges will likely not be any better than a group of 'untrained' civilians. 3. "If the system was random. . . " 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. The lawyers aren't exactly presented with full information on these people. The questions the potential jurors are asked are not extremely comprehensive. Many people argue that they don't do enough to prevent bias. Not much would go to suggest we're going to find tons of professional jurors who are immune to bias and prejudice. As I say again, They're far more likely to be bought off and/or threatened by criminals than randomly selected jurors. There's nothing wrong with random judges or random prosecutors. In the end, That's not far off from what is done. The main problem would be the public defenders are so overworked as to be less effective than the prosecution, And to push for deals far more than they perhaps should. 4. To clarify again, When I compare judges and random juries I'm doing so to give you the best possible case scenario for your position, And these are all numbers we actually have that show some judges have biases certain ways as well. These are the MOST trained people. You can't simply say "a trained jury will always be better" In theory, Perhaps, But the best trained people we have already have shown plenty of bias and problems. Why then would we assume a large number of people less trained than judges would do better? Shadow of a doubt eliminates many cases that I've seen, Do you actually have numbers to support that people convict based on too little evidence in large numbers? One of the big problems with the world is there usually isn't 100% foolproof ways to know that a certain crime happened. Who is to judge juries on whether or not they were correct to put someone in jail that they were 99% certain should go there? Is this a fault with the jury or the prosecution, Or the evidence we allowed them to present? Shoddy drug tests are permissible in court right now that juries would convict on, That doesn't mean it is the jury's fault that they were presented and demonstrated to be valid. 5. When juries are in play expert witnesses have to be hired to help them understand everything. The judge instructs them on what must be done and what rules are to be followed. It isn't so hard of a job as to require a 4 year degree or more. The specifics of each individual case can be understood well enough on their own. You don't have to pass the BAR to understand one case. You may to understand many cases. If we were to have a professional jury they'd probably have to be lawyers. Who is paying these people? They certainly won't be paid what current juries are being paid, And we can't even demonstrate how they'd be better. 6. 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. "Lawyer bias" is not eliminated here, And in fact may be increased based on the case. In a juror selection right now the defense and the prosecution both select the jury. They are both trying to win, Ideally. You can argue there are cases where they aren't but then I could argue that there are far more cases where whoever is selecting these professional jurors would be biased against or for the defendant with no clear counter. If you set up a group of lawyers to pick jurors, How is that any different from what we currently have now? 7. The judge is impartial in a case where there is a jury. He may have a bias but it hardly matters. He doesn't select the jury. So we're down to 2 biased people in my system. One of those is biased against the defense, And one is biased for. These cancel each other out. They both can throw out some jurors, They can agree to throw out jurors together, And they can accept jurors together. This is as balanced as it gets. You, On the other hand, Are saying that 1 person will have full access to which jurors get selected for which cases. This person would presumably be a lawyer, Someone with advanced knowledge to know what cases the jurors are qualified to adjudicate. They'd know the case and they'd probably know the qualifications of jurors. Even if you gave them no information about how they ruled in the past, What their ethnicities are, What their past is, How old they are, Et cetera you'd still be picking poor juries for the cases half the time, Whereas a defense attorney will help construct a jury of his peers. A randomly selected jury could be full of white people who prosecute a black person, And the black criminal would probably appeal this citing racism and certainly get another case. 8. You think professional jurors wouldn't get complaints brought up to them by the people who are their bosses? A system that has no penalties or consequences for jurors where there aren't bosses would be disastrous, And those bosses would be subject to their own corruptions. This is government being the judge, Jury, And executioner. They already are two of these things, Why make them the third? If we could get rid of the government then we should. Of course. Government is the necessary evil to combat anarchy. Perhaps one day we will be able to give up control to machines, But we're dealing with the cards we have. Again, I'm suggesting a system where the government is judge and executioner, You're the one suggesting it has to be all or nothing. Is that a legitimate criticism of my position? It's similar to saying to a person who asks for only ketchup on their burger, WELL THEN CLEARLY YOU NEED MAYO AND MUSTARD TOO YOU FOOL! It is a legitimate point to say that there ought to be a balance, A counter, To government having full control over prosecuting people. Many people, For example, Would exonerate whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Do you want to 100% honestly suggest that your system would lead to a professional jury that would not be pressured to convict him if the people writing their checks and determining their fates told them to convict? I don't think so. 1. Who pays for them? 2. Their bosses can pressure them. 3. The selection of them is still biased. 4. Are there enough? May your thoughts be clear. -Thoht