After watching the documentary series "making a murderer" i have a lot of questions about the whole jury system in murrica.
Its a "classic" story about the american court system failing massively, not only because one of the defendents couldnt pay 100 thousands of dollars for a lawyer, but i think mainly because the whole case is decided by 12 random people with no expertise.
As a german, the whole jury system is pretty alien to me. In germany we have 1 judge in smaller cases and 3 judges in more serious, violent crimes. Myself and many germans prefer it that way, but i know many americans find this system absurd.
How can you give so much power to 12 completey random people?
Now this is gonna sound weird, but why cant jurors ask questions during the trial? They potentionally decide to kill someone, so every detail should be explained to them until they understand it perfectly. Maybe even until some third party is convinced the juror actually understands.
Refering back to the documentary, some people just arent very smart, actually fuck that, some people are really fucking stupid. They dont grasp the concept of evidence and proof, they dont understand reasonable doubt.
jurors decide not to talk it through as long as it takes, because they wanna go home, cuase they got shit to do.
People have issues with racism, prejeduice, get influenced by emotions etc. They can even decide that despite it being absolutely 100% clear that the defendent did it, to let him walk free, for no reason.
Do you think if we could just implement a completely new justice system tomorrow, someone would defend the jury system over something like 1 judge, multiple judges, a jury made up out of lawyers and judges, maybe juror as a completely standalone job, you'd still have to study law to some extent.
All of these systems have problems and flaws, but less than "just let 12 randoms decide whatever they want ignoring facts and law alike"
>>472475
I watched that doco as well recently, pretty fucking scary something like that.
>>472475
the whole point of the American justice system in trials is to have a jury by "peers" these people do not need to necessarily be the brightest or the best, it goes into the requirements that the guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone, so what is reasonable doubt is dependent on ones peers
>>472475
You'd be better off asking in reference to a Westminster Common Law system rather than a semi-code civil system like the US.
>>472560
>these people do not need to necessarily be the brightest or the best
But isnt that a huge fucking problem?
All you need to qualify to decide to kill someone, is be 18+ and be phyically present. You dont even have to listen at trial, or maybe you do listen but you dont understand.
The concept is ludicrous in pretty much all other areas of life.
>>472595
I dident say i agreed with the system that's just how it is in the constitution, however i think that in general it serves well as a system because it keeps trials from being biased
>>472475
Not American, but I think the motivation for having that kind of system is that you should be judged by your peers, i.e civilians, and not by a judge who is more than likely a person who has that job because of nepotism or political reasons.
I agree that in practice, random people have issues of prejudice, racism and can be influenced, but you haven't pointed to in what way this is less true if you have three 3 judges determining the outcome of your trial, as it is in Germany, but you're welcome to do so.
>>472633
of course judges have issues with racism and emotions too, but they understand what evidence is, they understand what scientifically proofs what, they understand the actual law.
All the systems i made up or mentioned, fail at the same point, human error. But the influence of that human error gets smaller and smaller the smarter/more knowledgable in the field people you put into the group of men that eventually decide.
You'd have the same appeal system as right now, so by the time youve gone through it, you went through 3-4x3 judges. If the judges directly decide, you can look at a judge and evaluate his convictions. Someone is convicting black people 25% more often than normal... may be check him out.
Now this doesnt proof anything, but in my 25 years of living in germany, ive never heard about a court case. Not a single one, not a single piece of news or a scandal about judges fucking up this or that. So we either have the most corrupt system in the world where nothing ever leaks, or there really isnt much power abuse going on.
>>472633
>and not by a judge who is more than likely a person who has that job because of nepotism or political reasons
Well I don't think this is true for western countries as say Brazil I think its purpose is to help defend against political decisions and corruption
>>472475
>not only because one of the defendents couldnt pay 100 thousands of dollars for a lawyer
Gideon vs. Wainwright means you have a right to an attorney
>>472680
>but they understand what evidence is, they understand what scientifically proofs what, they understand the actual law.
But the jury's job is also to understand the evidence.
I don't think a judge is more competent simply because he has memorized a law book.
I don't think the jury system will last much more, they will soon be call it "racist" and "sexist" and get away with it.
>>472713
>I don't think a judge is more competent simply because he has memorized a law book.
i absolutely do think so. Also because he deals with evidence every single day.
This show just showed me how stupid the average person is, people who admit to not knowing what the word "inconsistent" means, jurors who are being shown an interrogation of a kid with 70 IQ and taken the "confession" as truthful despite being obviously coerced. Judges wouldnt make those mistakes. And if they did, they would eventually get fired.
>>472475
Juries are (chiefly) a check on collusion between judges and prosecutors or other influential lawyers. They only decide issues of fact. I don't know what sort of "expertise" is supposed to be required or even relevant to a job that generally comes down to making a judgment call as to which witness is more honest or has a better memory.
The way it works out is this.
If either lawyer or the judge objects to a jurror in the interview process he is out. The lawyers want the jurors to be impressionable sheep so they can work their magic. The judge wants complacent idiots who will obey his rulings on how they can or cannot approach it.
>>472739
Yes, but you are clearly taking one case and generalizing it to all of them.
There is guaranteed to be cases in the history of Germany where judges made the wrong call as well, but I wouldn't be moved to call all the judges retarded, or the system itself retarded would I?
>>472475
>germans actually think having three similar people who know each other decide the entire lives of people is a good idea
They are being nazi again
>>472795
No, it should not. Law is part of the humanities.
>>472765
I'm a lawyer. We do not have "magic" to work. Basically what we do in front of a jury is ask questions about what happened, get skeptical when it suits the client and go along with the witness when it doesn't. If my client has a really shitty case, then, yeah, I might want idiots on the jury. Otherwise, no, I want solid people so that I can predict their behavior better. Also, lawyers can't just exclude jurors willy-nilly. You get a couple of "peremptory challenges" which are basically like that, but after that you have to show cause for excluding someone.
>>472795
The formation of law is political. Individual cases are often political (unless precedent). This thread is dangerously close to political theory.
>>472703
This is true, but depending in what state and in what city one is located can have a huge effect into the quality/ amount of public defenders available. In some places with high demand, public defenders only have 7 some-odd minutes to look at and prepare a case, thus causing most of them to just try and work out a plea deal because they don't have the time to understand the case enough to actually defend their client. So yes one does have the right to an attorney, but that attorney is basically worthless unless one has money or live in a area with a low population.
>>472475
Initially "jury of your peers" was your family and friends, is easy to disqualify any jury member with one question.
Are you a us citizen?
In order to be on the jury you must be one. If you're not a us citizen those are not your peers.
This is what happend to those father and son who gunned down two police officers at a traffic stop.
Exercising their right to defend property they held under a claim of right from those who would use violence to take it away without due process of law.
Just look into jury nullification. The job of the jury is to judge the law, not the man on trial.
Oj Simpson won his criminal case in 3 minutes by his attorney exposing the fraud.
Judges have actually sent the sheriff out to find jurors even if they had to arrest them, and still never found anyone who claims they're not a us citizen.
Next time you go to court, look behind you, all those people in the crowd that's an informal grand jury of your peers, 25 people or more makes a grand jury. All those people are there because of fraud. You've got that in common. In America grand juries are all attorneys. But it's coming back, we are taking back our common law courts of record, and run away grand juries are taking over the UK. Watch the documentary called "by the consent of the governed"
>>472713
>Someone who have to study at least 6,5 years of law before being a judge don't have more to say on the matter than a some random dude
May as well bring in homeless people to act as doctors
>>472566
US uses common law
>>472475
>Now this is gonna sound weird, but why cant jurors ask questions during the trial?
Because it's the Crown's case to prove, not the jury's
>>473025
>In America grand juries are all attorneys
I thought attorneys can't be jurors
At least not in Canada
>>473039
It sounds like you're missing something basic about what juries do. They rule on very basic factual questions. Typically it's "which witness do you think is lying." There is nothing in a legal education (which is three years of grad school, not six and a half, by the way) that gives you some kind of superhuman insight into those issues. There isn't, in fact, any real training on forensics or medicine (the two things where expert witnesses come in most often). There's just nothing that makes a lawyer or a judge better at betting on what happened in an event that they weren't there for.
>>472475
Potatoes
