I think that if I ever got called in for jury duty, I'd be booted out within the first day. Why?
Well, have you ever watched a lawyer movie that is all about the trial? You watch two people in fancy suits sort through tons of paperwork and make their cases and piece the details together. Then you watch them decide how to present it so that things are tilted in favor of whichever side they are arguing. Then they stand up and make objections to things and somehow the jury is supposed to ignore what was said. Their arguments always leave me wanting to shout, to point out a point that wasn't stated during the trial, to ask the wittness another question, or call a different wittness entirely.
You see, if I were on a jury, I'd be raising my hand just like I was in a classroom whenever I had a question. I don't understand how a jury can make an informed decision sitting idly by and watching a carefully planned performance like the lawyers put on. I'd want to ask my own questions, analyze the evidence for my self, talk to each witness without any lawyer present. I don't feel like I could make a honest and informed decision any other way. I can't let other people do all of the research for me, and trust that they did a good job. .
So the judge would probably kick me out before they day was through. Because I couldn't just sit still and listen. If I'm supposed to decide someone's guilt, let me ask the questions. Let the lawyer give me a baseline of what the witness saw, but then open it up to the jury. After all, they're the ones making the decision.
Actually, I think the whole idea of two people each defending one side of the case is a bad idea. It makes you skew the facts to line up with one explanation or another. You can't just look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. We ought to have three professional investigators each work the case independently, and then present their findings to the jury, who can ask questions and then make a decision. No pressure to make evidence fit one side or the other. No pressure to win the case, whether you think the person is guilty or not.
I've never much liked the way our legal system works. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't mind serving jury duty, if I am ever called. But honestly, I don't think I could follow our current system's rules.
What do you think? Do you see any holes in the way our trials are run? Would you raise your hand to ask questions if you were a juror?
I'd never thought about this before (actually, I'm not even sure if I would qualify to be a juror yet anyway) but I think I would be just the same! One thing I definitely think is that the jury system is wrong. The whole premise is wrong. 12 people who are supposed to be unbiased? First - no-one's ever going to be completely unbiased. Some people are more naturally judgemental, others will have some reason in their life that leans them towards one side or another, and others might not have the confidence to stand up for their own viewpoint. But not only that - these 12 people don't know anything about the legal system! They are just 12 ordinary people. 12 ordinary people, in my opinion, are NOT qualified to decide stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteSomething else wrong with the legal system is the whole defence system - I know that you're entitled to a fair trial, but if you are CLEARLY guilty and your lawyer can tell that, but don't *technically hear it from you*, they will still defend your innocence. That is plain wrong, as far as I'm concerned, and I honestly don't know how DAs live with themselves if they know they're defending a guilty person.