Comment on this entry
Why Don’t We Have Professional Jurors?
January 03, 2012
{abstract}
{ShowSummary}
{summary}
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 01/03 at 11:04 AM
Great article and an interesting notion. It might be expensive given the number of trials going on at any given time. It would be possible with properly trained jurors to have fewer at a trial. A lot of cases could be decided as in traffic court, by the judge alone. The other option would be to recognize that a lot of what we call “crime” is the conflict of values of different communities. eg. gangs and the rest of us. People who can build bridges between communities might be more effective than penitentiaries at reducing crime. They might also be able to help with your neighbour.
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/03 at 12:50 PM
Juries of the Least Competent are, in fact, a PERFECT example of why democracies exist.
The jury system can’t logically work.
It is an inherently flawed idea.
So why do we have it?
Answer: Because it’s the answer that will be agreed upon by the most number of people for the longest time.
Which is exactly the strength of democracy—it outlives the other systems. Darwin again.
Right or wrong, the cockroach of our justice system will continue forever.
Posted by ptittle on 01/03 at 08:27 PM
Alex, re your comment about the number of trials…something else I thought of that I neglected to mention is the increasing (?) trend to use pre-trial mediators so not everything GOES to trial…
as for the general ‘what to do with all our criminals’ issue (your “people who can build bridges” comment…), I’ve just finished reading Alexander Irvine’s novel Buyout. Great, really thought-provoking premise! (won’t spoil it for potential readers…)
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/03 at 08:56 PM
Timely, as Buck Roge..,
er, I mean, Newt Gingrich is bringing this sort of thing up. We need a genuinely correctional, not penal-recidivist, system. Prisons ought to be only for those who are incorrigibly violent—those who cannot be corrected.
Posted by Alex Irvine on 01/04 at 02:29 PM
Peg, I appreciate the mention of Buyout. Glad you enjoyed it. Also I noticed the Nautilus-curve IEET logo; quite a coincidence given the role that particular figure plays in the book…
And having served as foreman of a hung jury before, I read your thoughts on the topic with much interest.
Posted by ptittle on 01/04 at 02:52 PM
Alex, hi!
(So I’m not the only one to have set a google alert for my name!  )
Not to go too far off topic, and sort-of SPOILER ALERT here, what I found most fascinating about your book was the implicit idea that one can make more of a difference with one’s death than with one’s life (struggling here in mid-life crisis with my many failures to make the world a better place…) - that, essentially, death can matter more than life. What a boggling concept. (I mean, sure, that’s the essence of martyrdom, but your ‘use’ of the idea is so much more intriguing…)
Also, you might be interested, I’m working on another solution…as soon as I finish turning my screenplay “What Happened to Tom” into a novel, I’m going to do the same with another screenplay, “Exile”... (synopses available at my website if you’re interested…)
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/04 at 06:51 PM
“... People who can build bridges between communities might be more effective than penitentiaries at reducing crime.”
The above is what I was attempting to get towards in the last, cursory, comment, it is naturally the collateral issue; we don’t sponsor a justice system, the difficulties with education are as nothing to the difficulties with our ‘justice’ system—our’s is in fact an injustice system; so though it is correct, it would be cosmetic to hire professional jurors.
Though attorneys are to be held culpable, worse are those who run jails and pens, they are generally quite callous. The whole system is a racket, one of the most shameful rackets in existence, a funds transfer to benefit attorneys, jailers, judges, and all but taxpayers. Even the poor benefit because being moved through the injustice system exposes them to certain benefits from the welfare system. And don’t anyone write of how they think I am exaggerating: all day I overhear and sometimes join conversations including the words “court”; “lawyer”; “probation officer”; “bail”; “community service”, and so forth. Part of it is of course that many criminals are just plain *stupid*; however (it goes without saying at IEET) some of the statutes are stupid & arbitrary themseves, exacerbating the situation. No one should be incarcerated for what we call victimless crimes.
If this all strikes you as being bitter, it is, because for a nation which bills itself as the ‘greatest country in the world’ to possess an injustice system is nothing short of revolting—not to mention depressing.
Professional juries is a good start, but a tiny, incremental start.
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 01/04 at 08:02 PM
@ Intomorrow, what you are saying is very similar to my conclusions in my At the Edge of Humanity (read it here: http://responsiblist.blogspot.com/2011/11/at-edge-of-human-rights-introduction.html ) I suggest that the way we do things is not only ineffective but contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights. Incarceration is very much linked to colour, social status and poverty among other things.
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/04 at 09:56 PM
You are right, Alex; but since Canadians haven’t quite decided who they are, do you think they might be changed first and then America? Don’t know what Canada is like (the where does matter), here we are stuck in Depression-era thinking which keeps our legal system mired in its now outmoded precedents. As you know, there is no code, merely, basically, precedents. Think of it, we still live in Reagan’s America, and Reagan was 18 the very moment the Great Depression began. So it does make some sort of sense reckoning with the Politics, and thus, economics, of Nostalgia. Scarcity-sentimentality, virtually.
So the entire way Americans—again, am not familiar enough with other nations—think has to change first and afterwards the legal system. This piece touched on gangs yet not mobs. Let’s use what goes on in counteracting organized crime as an example of what a joke the legal system is, a joke at the expense of the taxpayer: cellphones are cloned, surveillance continues for months on average; unfortunately the ultimate outcome is only really a dent in mobsters’ activities, plus promotions and certificates for Outstanding RICO Investigator—it is pro forma.
How can America… you tell us about Canada… be responsible as you correctly stress, when our thinking is lodged so firmly in the past we cannot even adapt to the future let alone be responsible? no one in America appears to so much as know what responsibility is. Americans probably pay more attention to cigarettes than responsibility; alcohol and sports mean more than tobacco. America’s priorities are so skewed by a moralist’s standards, the legal system is more or less fluff, to be justified if people are perceived as economic bacteria in a commercial digestive system. Reducing life to creative destruction is the one rationalization which makes sense, then life is predatory yet productive- and someone can drink or dope themselves to oblivion.
Not to ever forget the Politics of Nostalgia. The outlying areas, the Heartland, was surprising to move to. Being raised in the East, it was somewhat of a shock to experience how fusty Middle America is. I can remember as far back as 1962; in those 50 years only Civil Rights was a substantial change in the Heartland—almost all else stagnated.
Posted by ptittle on 01/05 at 12:03 AM
Intomorrow - what? “Canadians haven’t quite decided who they are”?? I think you’re confusing some nonexistent national identity (and assuming every resident of an accidental geographic area shares it) with the policies of those in political power. (not quite on point, but I had to say it!)
Posted by Christian Corralejo on 01/05 at 12:47 AM
@ Intomorrow
Again I think you’re over analyzing a bit (I also posted a response to your last post in the “Antidote for Modernity” thread concerning Others at IEET not having anything against Alex being a Canadian because of being distracted by families and responsibilities [which I don’t think is either fair, accurate, or rationally thought out]).
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/05 at 08:11 PM
Professional juries are a positive to many of us here at IEET, however not only is such a baby-step, but the opposition—as you know better, ptittle—is determined and ferocious.
Canada is in fact a newer nation than America, and has not developed the national ID America has; Alex himself—who identified himself as Canadian and not by province or something else—wrote Canadians are not quite as strident as Americans: well, give Canadians a bit more time and perhaps they will be as strident . England has existed for far over a thousand years and is more refined culturally. Joern and Peter can tell us how Denmark and Belgium have evolved to more refined states culturally than America—not to write such is necessarily ‘better’. America (as China) is a larger, more productive nation, albeit larger nations are more chauvinist as they have the bigger guns to back up their chauvinism.
Trying to evade the policies of those in power is necessary but is still escapism, for instance those connected with OWS have to look over their shoulders, they have to cover themselves and play games, OWS though positive for many of us, is nascent. The Arab Spring is in a nascent stage as well; the revolutions have been merely baby-steps so far. And professional juries, again, though positive, appears to me as spraying air freshener on a giant cow flop. If you seriously want change, the cow flop has to be discarded.
My point was & is, the where does matter. A good example is how Mexico is undeniably distinct from Canada and America. One can try to escape the clutches of the policies of those in political power however it doesn’t mean one will; one might be going through the motions of doing so.
In tiny increments.
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/05 at 09:44 PM
“Right or wrong, the cockroach of our justice system will continue forever.”
The negative of democracy, as the quote above captures, is it drags us down perceptibly to a lower common denominator.
Don’t know about “forever” but the above concisely pegs the situation: democracy is the worst of all systems save for the others; the jury system is bad but considering America’s size (we are nothing like Vatican City or Monaco) our jury system is serviceable until we evolve beyond it. I have to disagree, though, with Dave Brin concerning what he wrote as a comment (via James) in his piece on pining for the dead old days. Dave wrote of righteous indignation being inverse to wisdom—or something to that effect.
Not necessarily. Christopher Hitchens was plenty righteously indignant; so was Mencken; yet they were as wise as can be while still being human. Dave Brin knows a great deal more than I do—however he does not know everything. There is much that anyone at IEET can tell me regarding science; but nothing else of any substance.
Didn’t want to write this before: intellectuals are con artists, though naturally to varying degrees; on a scale of 1-10, say, Gandhi was a ‘1’, because he had nothing to lose except for perhaps his loin cloth and his spinning wheel. On the negative end of the scale is Newt Gingrich, a ‘10’ who has very much to lose—his titanic ego, for starters. As Bob Dylan sang:
“when you got nothin’
you got nothin’ to lose
you’re invisible
you got nothin’, to conceal”
Posted by Alex Irvine on 01/06 at 12:49 PM
Peg: It’s an interesting topic for sure. I had a lot of different angles on it and took a look at them through different drafts of the book. It was a fascinating way to have an argument with myself through the course of revising the book (although I was sick of it by the time I’d been fooling around with the book for a few years). Far as turning screenplays into novels, I’d suggest that if you want to make a living you’re doing it backwards .
Google Alerts are fun. I also hear about soccer players in Scotland, a photographer, and occasionally the former Lord Chancellor of England.
@previous comment: “intellectuals are con artists”? Long live anti-intellectualism! I might suggest populists are the real con artists because they encourage ways of thinking that keep people isolated and fearful. But whatever.
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/06 at 01:02 PM
Intomorrow, our current, flawed jury system, like democracy itself, has its greatest strength not in its rightness, moral superiority, or any other principle. Instead, like the cockroach, it will survive the longest. That’s because democracy, and our Wild West style of jury selection, accommodates the desires of the greatest number of people for the longest period of time, right or wrong.
Re: comparisons to other countries. I have lived years in each of many countries, and can assure you that Germany, France, and Japan are quite proud, exclusive chauvinist cultures, with a great many citizens believing all others to be inferior to them in every way. China’s legal and political system, while influenced in practice by old culture, is quite new: They’ve decimated their own system several times in less than 100 years. Japan’s system is very new and modern, imposed by necessity (and MacArthur) after we flattened their economy. There, you’ll not see juries at all.
America’s justice system is very much different than all others, largely because of the pioneer’s need for personal defense and our nation’s early need to expand through violent acquisition of Indian territory and Mexican territory.
Intomorrow, are you excluding yourself from “intellectuals are con artists.” I ask this, not to set up an ad hominem attack, but to clarify. Isn’t everyone on IEET an intellectual? What definition do you mean?
I’m genuinely intrigued what you mean by ‘substance’ in “There is much that anyone at IEET can tell me regarding science; but nothing else of any substance.”
Posted by ptittle on 01/06 at 01:20 PM
Alex (I.), can’t find an email address for you, would like to pursue one of your comments that’s off-topic for here…ptittle7@gmail.com
mugglemike, and others, what systems do other countries use (if not juries of peers) - and are they better?
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/06 at 01:51 PM
In Japan, there is MUCH individual discretion.
For most minor offenses:
ALL arrests must have a warrant.
The perp’s family will give gifts, restitution and express sorrow to the victim.
The police ask the victim if he is satisfied with the apology and restitution, and if they can release the perp.
Most arrests are thus resolved, and never referred for prosecution.
The trial is by one or three lay judges, using a standard reference to determine punishment. They have much discretion.
In general, the whole legal system is quite INexpensive. Lawsuits are usually decided by a single arbitrator who meets with the opposing people, without lawyers.
Indeed, most legal contracts are only one page long.
The whole concept of “lawyer” is a bit different. Very few people go through the whole “law school” gauntlet for the full real deal. Mostly, there are simply a whole bunch of “specialty semi-lawyers” who only trained in their particular expertise, so the degree is much easier to get. So common people can afford justice.
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/06 at 01:57 PM
You’ll also not see juries in China. But you will notice quite a few executions for victimless crimes and also forced relocation of the criminal’s family.
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/06 at 02:09 PM
If you’re innocent, you do NOT want to be arrested in Germany or Korea. Highly authoritarian.
Remember that “inalienable rights” is a new, American idea. Elsewhere, you get what the local government gives you.
Although the US imposed jury systems in Germany for a while, the country went back to a judge-only system as soon as the occupying forces allowed it.
The judges are almost always powerful old men who dispense justice (within practical limits) as they see fit, and their township likes it that way.
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/07 at 05:00 AM
“I might suggest populists are the real con artists because they encourage ways of thinking that keep people isolated and fearful.”
There you go- it is bad all round, is it not? bad news Germany went back to a judge-only system as soon as the occupying forces allowed it; one might have thought the Germans would have learned something regarding this from the largest war ever plus the aftermath of the war.. however one would be wrong.
Now we can see anachronistic legal systems are going to drag on for decades fighting their rearguard actions, correct? is there any doubt of that?
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/07 at 05:24 AM
” Intomorrow, are you excluding yourself from ‘intellectuals are con artists.’ I ask this, not to set up an ad hominem attack, but to clarify. Isn’t everyone on IEET an intellectual? What definition do you mean? I’m genuinely intrigued what you mean by ‘substance’ in ‘There is much that anyone at IEET can tell me regarding science; but nothing else of any substance.’ “
Sure I’m a con, all intellectuals cover their rear ends, ‘Cover Thy Posterior’ is rule #1, otherwise we don’t own even so much as desks to place our computers on. As for the 2nd question, I’ve been familiar, just to begin with, with the same stale Rightist libertarian propaganda for 45 years and will possibly be so for the next 45. I’m sick & tired of it—am not an automaton; not yet, anyway.
“Japan’s system is very new and modern, imposed by necessity (and MacArthur) after we flattened their economy.”
This is a sanitized manner of expressing it: we bombed the hell out of them! crushing, incinerating ‘em. We’d have needed an economic-neutron weapon to have merely “flattened their economy.”
If you want me to be of greater clarity, you might take your own advice.
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/07 at 12:00 PM
@ Intomorrow: I’ll disagree about Germany. What evidence do you have that their system is wrong?
Certainly everyone does CYA. I’d argue that the efforts of any organism—or any organization—are mainly to ensure self-survival first, and its stated purpose second. Our incompetent jury system will likewise survive because the lawyers get paid to manipulate them.
Peg Tittle asked the question in her thoughtful article on this important topic. But, assuming professional juries are the answer, there’s still no motivation on the part of the players to change the game.
@ PTittle: I wonder if there’s ANYONE within the justice system who is paid to ensure justice is truly done? In my limited view, the judge must ensure adherence to certain rules, the lawyers are paid to ensure their side wins, the appeals courts are paid to ensure adherence to rules, and only the jury—disallowed from seeing certain evidence or asking questions for themselves—are charged with the outcome. (At $5 a day.)
The OVERARCHING question remains: How can our justice system be improved to deliver actual justice?
(In what way was “flattened their economy” unclear? It’s a very well documented fact. To add the “incinerating” details would have only added emotion, and wouldn’t have clarified anything.)
Posted by ptittle on 01/07 at 12:31 PM
Presumably the lawmakers, the legislators, are the ones who ensure justice is truly done. They design and redesign laws to make that so. But, of course, we’ll say the legislators just pass whatever laws will keep them in power. So the burden passes to lobbyists.
What we need is a fleet of (independent) paid legal philosophers on staff.
Intomorrow, not all intellectuals HAVE a desk - in any institutionalized office. As an independent, I don’t have to cover my ass, because I have nothing to lose by not doing so. And a lot to lose BY doing so. Self-respect, for one. (Ouch.)
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/07 at 09:43 PM
“But, assuming professional juries are the answer, there’s still no motivation on the part of the players to change the game”
Mike, here you are in clarity: we agree there’s too much to be raked in by the players via the status quo. BTW it may be nitpicking, Mike, however saying we flattened the Axis economies in WWII is almost comparable to saying when a Jumbojet crashes and many passengers are killed that:
“the luggage was destroyed.”
Posted by muggleMikeC on 01/08 at 09:40 AM
Well, yeah, you’re right. I get that I only pointed out the luggage. That’s an apt analogy.
Maybe I take it for granted that everyone knows the awesome horrific destruction of that war because I do. You obviously understand it.
I appreciate your comments.—Mike, out.
Posted by Tom_B on 01/15 at 12:23 PM
The jury system is fundamentally flawed. My brother-in-law, a lawyer, pointed out that in a capital case, if you, as a potential juror do NOT believe in the death penalty, you will be dismissed automatically. In other words, if I were black and happened to be the first person a cop came across near a murder scene, I could be sentenced to die by a jury stuffed with awful people I would not even choose to associate with, mostly likely, if encountered them in cheerier circumstances. Some “jury of your peers”.
Posted by Intomorrow on 01/15 at 07:43 PM
“The jury system is fundamentally flawed.”
No doubt about: it is a fact, not opinion.
Take a novel which appears to be fiction, Grisham’s “A Time To Kill” (the title a Biblical reference), the book is based on fact; illustrating how jury and grand jury trials are based on emotion-bias. “Serpico” is an older book, yet not outdated.. still relevant as to how law enforcement personnel are as prejudiced as juries—and have likewise been known to have been corrupted.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog