SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (193645)7/9/2004 6:58:15 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573431
 
Our major difference is that I trust my fellow citizens more than a mixture of elected and appointed judges.

I would trust our citizens more if the system was set up better. Lawyers for either the prosecution/plaintiff or the defense frequently throw out informed intelligent jurors in favor of those who they think they can manipulate more or who are more favorable to their side. They do so not only with peremptory challenges (which are at least limited in number) but also under the guise of trying to get rid of any juror who has an opinion and is thus biased. Judges might not let jurors take notes or might otherwise limit them.

If the jurors are in charge of making the decision it should be made harder to manipulate the jury pool. If we respect the abilities of jurors to reach a fair an just decision then they shouldn't be overly controlled and should be treated by the judicial system with a certain amount of respect.

The tone of this post might be a bit more negative then it should be. I'm focusing on the problems and abuses but I'm not saying that there are no juries aren't made up of intelligent informed people who are treated respectfully by the court. Its just that there are many cases where this is not so. Its not that I think the just system is useless or should be gotten rid of, its that I think it should be improved.

Tim