Should we do trial by jury?

[Barrister]

When I was selected for a jury in a civil case, we the jury existed for an hour, as the case got settled soon after the jury was selected.  The funniest thing was that for that hour, in the room with all the jurors, everyone seemed to be in a competition to express the greatest devastation and distress at being selected for a jury.  The truth is that no one would be there if they didn't want to be there.

Yeah - I mean there's always the Homer Simpson method of beating jury duty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgcbsFFY1A

But yes - if you make it clear you don't want to be on a jury, either the judge or the lawyers will excuse you (note: in Canada we no longer have preemptory challenges, so it would only be the judge that can excuse you.  But they will).

[Gups]

I do planning and real estate litigation so no specialist professional knowledge. However, like the author I have served on three juries, the last as foreman. In each case, everyone took their job very seriously. The listened to the evidence carefully and discussed it in the jury room with mutual respect. Of course, my anecdotal experience is no more persuasive than his.

[Zanza]

Don't have a real opinion on juries.

We have courts with a bench of professional and lay judges. The lay judges are selected for a time period like a year or two, hearing cases during that time (not as s full-time job though). That system seems to work reasonably well.

My mother did that before for juvenile criminal court. A colleague who is in a trade union sits on a labour court as a lay judge.

[Syt]

I need to look into how Austria does it. I know from reading news about court cases that in some instances there's one judge in some cases, some cases have juries, and other cases have one judge with two lay judges.

According to wiki:

The court is actively involved, questioning witnesses brought forward by the parties to the trials, summoning expert witnesses on its own initiative, and generally attempting to determine the truth. Most trials are bench trials, although the bench will often be a panel including one or more lay judges (Schöffen). Criminal defendants accused of political transgressions or of serious crimes with severe penalties have a right to trial by jury.

[The Minsky Moment]

So jurors being serious - I can't emphasize this enough.  They really are.  It's the one really awesome aspect of the jury system (in the original meaning of awesome).

Yes there is a selection bias.  If you don't want to be on a jury you have an opportunity to say so, for whatever reason.  If the reason isn't great the judge will say "well I'm not going to excuse you, but maybe we'll just put you back in the pool".  But the reality is those people are not selected.  I believe I mentioned that juries wind up overwhelmingly being civil servants (because the government pays your salary while on the jury) or retired people.

There is some selection bias although in my own experience juries tend to be much more varied in backround.  There is something about the experience of being in the very formal setting of a courtroom, the process of being sworn in and seated in a special section, and all the pomp and cirumstance, that socializes people to act differently then they would in their ordinary casual conduct.  Everyday life is often about assuming different roles in different social circumstances and everything about the jury process pushes people into assuming the role expected of them.

[grumbler]

We may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

[Duque de Bragança]

We may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Was Friedkin's 1997 version of 12 Angry Men really that bad? 

[grumbler]

We may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Was Friedkin's 1997 version of 12 Angry Men really that bad? 

Yes.  While it had a good cast, each one of them as just that small increment worse than the actor whose place they were taking, bar Hume Cronyn.

[Caliga]

Having served on two juries, one civil and one criminal, my opinion based on my experiences is: no, we should not do trial by jury, unless we're talking professional jurists in the French style.

[Barrister]

Having served on two juries, one civil and one criminal, my opinion based on my experiences is: no, we should not do trial by jury, unless we're talking professional jurists in the French style.

Why?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

[The Brain]

I don't think juries have to be civil necessarily, but criminal juries is unacceptable.

[Jacob]

I don't think juries have to be civil necessarily, but criminal juries is unacceptable.

I don't think criminals are eligible for jury duty?

[Caliga]

Why?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy'

[Duque de Bragança]

We may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Was Friedkin's 1997 version of 12 Angry Men really that bad? 

Yes.  While it had a good cast, each one of them as just that small increment worse than the actor whose place they were taking, bar Hume Cronyn.

It's a remake OTOH, so competing with the original one is almost impossible (Sorcerer does not count, it's another adaptation of a literary work  ).

I will watch it on the silver screen in a couple of monts during a Friedkin retrospective ; my expectations have been lowered. 

[Josquius]

I don't think juries have to be civil necessarily, but criminal juries is unacceptable.

I dunno. It's meant to be a jury of your peers. If you're on trial for being a professional shop lifter shouldnt the jury be made of shop lifters?