Trial on Trial

[kvnchrist]

I know that there has been several high profile trials in the past few yearsw. I know that the practice is that the jury only see what is shown to them, but what I'd like to debate is should we, on the outside of such trial be given a steady diet of imformation and soeculation by these so-call experts, when the only one's that know these peoples qualifications are those that stick them in front of a camera. I myself have learned to hate Casey Anthony and I've never met her nor most likely never will. I know that some of the jury has been given death threats and one, I've heard, quit her job and left the state. I have three questions

 

(1) I know it that some people would think being on a high profile jury, but seeing the anger, is our jury system safe at all.

 

(2) Should parts of the jury include professional people who could answer questions the jurors have, If they are unfamiliar with the science that was used.

 

(3) Should evidence not shown at trial be subject to scrutiny by those outside in the public, while the trail is ongoing, and should the identiy of the jurors and the judge be held for at least a year.

 

 

I know there is a lot of anger out there, but I'm asking you to set that aside and ask yourself. Would you like to be the defendant in the trial after the one that a juror gets murdered by the public. Would you be judged by a jury of your peers or a jury of worried people

[marharth]

I am glad she was innocent.

 

Some people may of seen my posts in some other topics regarding the criminal system.

 

I would be surprised if she ever murders someone again, and I don't see any logic in punishing someone simply for revenge.

 

1. Our entire court system sucks, but I don't think people in the jury have anything to be afraid of.

 

2. Once again, our court system completely fails and puts a bunch of people who could know nothing about the criminal system on the jury. I think the jury as a whole either needs to go, or have a larger jury.

 

3. While the trial is ongoing, some things need to be withheld. Other things need to be shown to the public.

[Aurielius]

I know that there has been several high profile trials in the past few yearsw. I know that the practice is that the jury only see what is shown to them, but what I'd like to debate is should we, on the outside of such trial be given a steady diet of imformation and soeculation by these so-call experts, when the only one's that know these peoples qualifications are those that stick them in front of a camera. I myself have learned to hate Casey Anthony and I've never met her nor most likely never will. I know that some of the jury has been given death threats and one, I've heard, quit her job and left the state. I have three questions

 

(1) I know it that some people would think being on a high profile jury, but seeing the anger, is our jury system safe at all.

(2) Should parts of the jury include professional people who could answer questions the jurors have, If they are unfamiliar with the science that was used.

(3) Should evidence not shown at trial be subject to scrutiny by those outside in the public, while the trail is ongoing, and should the identiy of the jurors and the judge be held for at least a year.

I know there is a lot of anger out there, but I'm asking you to set that aside and ask yourself. Would you like to be the defendant in the trial after the one that a juror gets murdered by the public. Would you be judged by a jury of your peers or a jury of worried people

 

1) Being a juror is a civic duty, somewhat odious I admit but necessary for the maintenance of our judicial system...have served on two..one short and one terminally long. Nether was how I wanted to spend my time but c'est la vie.

2)Professional jurors would be an asset but the selection and elimination 'for cause' tends to weed them out, neither the prosecution or defense really seems to like having them in the final selection.

3) As long as our system is to remain transparent then it is necessary for all parts of it to be open for view. that is easily abused be the media, I would be much more in favor of a media gag while the trial is in progress but thats never going to happen.

 

Lastly a trial by your peers was devised when the voting populace and hence the jury pool was a marginal percentage of the English population, with universal suffrage I am not exactly sure what a true peer is anymore. In those days it consisted of land owners which were thought to be a more judicious breed than the common folk.

[HeyYou]

She was acquitted, I.E. there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict her. That doesn't necessarily imply she didn't do it..... the prosecution was simply unable to meet the criteria for a conviction.

 

The american legal system, while better than most.... is still a far cry from 'fair'. The criminals have more rights than the victims.

[grannywils]

We all cry out about a system that does not work. But being tried by a "jury of our peers", is in my opinion, one of the aspects that still does work. It would probably work a lot better if more people took it seriously and did recognize it as a civic duty (as mentioned above by Aurielius), and did not go through hoops to escape the obligation. I always accept jury duty when called, and firmly believe that all of us should. It is an obligation, and frequently an inconvenient one. However, if anyone of us are ever called to trial, we want to know that our jurors are, in fact our peers. Not just unemployed people, retired people or people who just like the idea of getting a few days off work. The system was set up to give as broad a spectrum as possible to all trials. Having sat on juries, I know that jurors are provided with enough information to make the decisions that they are called upon to make. We do not have to be experts. The witnesses are the experts. We are meant to review the testimony and come to a conclusion, pure and simple. And, no, it is not always easy. But we are citizens, and it is one of our responsibilities. One we should cherish. There are many countries where that honor does not exist.