An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
ASSERTION: Conscripted amateur juries should be replaced with professional juries that receive training and a salary commensurate with the seriousness of the duties they are expected to perform.
ARGUMENTS:
The United States military shifted from the draft to an all volunteer army decades ago based upon the realization that building an army out of people forced to serve against their will inevitably results in an unprofessional and unreliable military force. As example, the drafted army of the 1960's and 1970's was unable to defeat even one of the world's smallest poorest nations. Today the U.S. all volunteer army is arguably without peer across the world.
I'm arguing that the same reasoning applies to the creation of jury pools. The primary focus of jurors "drafted" against their will, on average, understandably be on how long it will be until they get to go home.
It is argued that paying jurors may create a bias for the state. However, all other members of the court except private defense attorney's are already paid by the state, and to my knowledge no one is arguing that all other members of the court are therefore unable to provide a professional service.
Thus, I assert that the slogan "civic responsibility" is really just a cover story for the less appealing reality, jurors are slave labor.
1) It is hereby argued that any trial system built upon slave labor is unprofessional and thus unfair to defendants.
2) Further, it is argued that the use of an unprofessional trial system renders the state unqualified to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3) Therefore, the defendant's inherent presumption of innocence remains in tact.
4) Therefore, any juror in any trial is obligated to vote to acquit.
I'm considering informing the court in writing that if called as a juror in any trial I will vote to acquit based on the above reasoning.
Talk me out of this if you wish. Or, if all else fails, come visit me in jail.
- Aristocles
- Premium Member
- Posts: 508
- Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Your reasoning for incentive to acquit may be applicable to be unfair to both the defense AND prosecution. But, like the military example, we may well be better off empowering people more than we empower institutions.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Chances are that you'll make you complaint to some clerical underling who cares about as much as you do. It won't be passed on. Even if you declared in court that you will vote to acquit, you might get a contempt charge but, if not, you would be the first juror chosen by the defence lawyer :D
Not a good strategy IMO. When dealing with the powers that be I recommend flying under the radar. If you are acting alone, you'd do well not to attract attention.
-
- Posts: 239
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:23 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Greta
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Would a professional jury serve for a long time and on many trials, or would it be like the current system where each jury serves for only one trial?
And some thoughts:
The purpose of the military is to protect national interests. Many people volunteer for that very reason. However, many join for less than noble reasons. Not everyone joins because of the actual purpose of the military.
The purpose of a jury is to serve justice. If jurors volunteer and get paid, some may do so for less than noble reasons. Is there any guarantee that justice would be served? Another problem I can see is that criminals (organized crime) could "stack the deck" of jurors by sending lots of sympathizers to volunteer. All it would take is one sympathizer to get on the professional jury to change outcomes. Not saying that a sympathizer can't get on the jury now, but volunteering would increase the chances.
This is another problem with the OP. Using the military in the 1960s and 1970s as an example that forced servitude does not work is faulty. The United States military of the time could have easily won that war if the politicians had wanted them to. For those who think otherwise, consider the extreme: North Viet Nam could have been nuked off the map. War over. The U.S. military of the time was extremely strong. The political will was weak.Ormond wrote:As example, the drafted army of the 1960's and 1970's was unable to defeat even one of the world's smallest poorest nations.
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Yes, substantially less than minimum wage. It's like leaving a nickel tip to your waitor.Greta wrote:Compensation for jury duty is token, less than unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure of the exact cost, but yes, definitely more expensive. What this means is that the burden of providing courts with juries would then be shared by the entire population through their taxes, instead of being born only those who are conscripted to serve on juries. Seems more fair to me, given that the entire population benefits the the jury trial system.If every trial required a group of trained legal professionals, court costs would go through the roof.
Yes, I agree. But it's not a complaint, but instead me disclosing my situation to the court. I agree complaints should go to the legislature, which I will be doing as well.Chances are that you'll make you complaint to some clerical underling who cares about as much as you do.
My guess is that it will have to be passed on to the attorney's. If not, that's fine with me, I will have fulfilled an obligation to report my situation to the court. What happens after that is up to them.It won't be passed on.
You could be right. If you are, I will try to post a photo of me in my orange jail jump suit.Even if you declared in court that you will vote to acquit, you might get a contempt charge but, if not, you would be the first juror chosen by the defence lawyer
Oh my, this is far too cowardly for me, but ok, to each their own.Not a good strategy IMO. When dealing with the powers that be I recommend flying under the radar. If you are acting alone, you'd do well not to attract attention.
-- Updated March 8th, 2016, 9:53 am to add the following --
It seems to me the attorneys should still be able to inspect and reject jurors on a case by case basis, for each trial. So the pro jurors might be available in the courthouse, but not necessarily always sitting as jurors.Gary S wrote:Would a professional jury serve for a long time and on many trials, or would it be like the current system where each jury serves for only one trial?
Yes, I agree, true enough. But on balance, seeing the force as a whole, the government has decided a volunteer force is more professional and effective than a conscripted force, which I argue would apply to juries as well.The purpose of the military is to protect national interests. Many people volunteer for that very reason. However, many join for less than noble reasons. Not everyone joins because of the actual purpose of the military.
Good question, and I believe this would be the primary challenge to a professional jury proposal.The purpose of a jury is to serve justice. If jurors volunteer and get paid, some may do so for less than noble reasons. Is there any guarantee that justice would be served?
I would counter that all members of the court (except private defense counsel) are already paid professional salaries by the state, and nobody to my knowledge is arguing that this creates a bias or prevents them from performing their functions in a professional manner.
It's upon this reasoning that I have concluded that the moralizing "civic duty" lecture given to jurors is actually bunkum, and that the reality is that jurors are a form of legalized slave labor. Wouldn't we call it slave labor if the judge, attorneys, court staff, baliff etc were compelled to serve against their will under threat of jail and paid a fraction of minimum wage?
I hadn't thought of that, good point. I would counter that we are going to have some problematic jurors in any case. As example, me.Another problem I can see is that criminals (organized crime) could "stack the deck" of jurors by sending lots of sympathizers to volunteer. All it would take is one sympathizer to get on the professional jury to change outcomes. Not saying that a sympathizer can't get on the jury now, but volunteering would increase the chances.
Well, nukes yes.This is another problem with the OP. Using the military in the 1960s and 1970s as an example that forced servitude does not work is faulty. The United States military of the time could have easily won that war if the politicians had wanted them to.
But if you want to fight a limited conventional war (ie. not go to war with China) then this was proven quite difficult with a conscripted force who often didn't support the war, and were doing lots of drugs, and sometimes shooting their own over eager officers in the heat of battle so that no one would notice the murder etc.
Again, it's not me that concluded a conscripted force doesn't work, it was the Congress and military leaders.
-- Updated March 8th, 2016, 11:39 am to add the following --
Here's a first draft of my letter to the court, see below. Please feel free to serve as volunteer editors by offering any suggestions, thanks.
----------------
Greetings,
First, please note I am not seeking to be excused from jury duty, or requesting any other action or communication from the court.
I'm writing to fulfill an obligation I feel to inform the court in advance of my jury service that if I am selected to serve on a jury I will vote to acquit.
If you should choose to read the optional further explanation below, please note that I'm not complaining to the court, but only explaining why I will vote to acquit. I will save complaints for the Legislature.
Why I Will Vote To Acquit
Decades ago the U.S. government ended the military draft and converted to an all volunteer model based on the reasoning that requiring citizens to serve against their will results in an unprofessional and unreliable military force.
In my opinion, the very same reasoning applies to the creation of trial juries.
1) I believe conscripted amateur juries are not adequately trained, appropriately motivated, or adequately compensated to form the foundation of a professional trial system.
2) Thus, I believe that lacking a professional trial system, the state is not currently in a position to find defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3) Thus, I believe the defendant's inherent assumption of innocence remains in tact.
4) Thus, I believe that within the current system my duty as a juror is to vote to acquit.
I do realize that I will be instructed to consider only the facts of a particular case, but I sincerely believe the use of a conscripted untrained jury, and thus an unprofessional trial process, to be a very relevant fact.
As evidence, please consider what our relationship with any trial would be if the judge, attorneys and other officers of the court were also untrained citizens required to serve against their will under threat of jail and then paid a fraction of minimum wage for their contributions to the process.
In summary, I see the concept of "civic duty" in regards to conscripted jury service to be a transparent euphemism for "slave labor", an inherently unprofessional arrangement unworthy of a process as important as a trial.
I do realize that none of my opinions are a valid basis for failing to comply with a court summons, so I will of course see you in court on the scheduled date.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Even if you declared in court that you will vote to acquit, you might get a contempt charge but, if not, you would be the first juror chosen by the defence lawyer
Generally, defence lawyers reject those who appear most conservative.Ormond wrote:You could be right. If you are, I will try to post a photo of me in my orange jail jump suit.
Not a good strategy IMO. When dealing with the powers that be I recommend flying under the radar. If you are acting alone, you'd do well not to attract attention.
Okay, do what you will. My advice is just to choose your battles well. If this jury issue is important enough to you to expose yourself to the risks of prison, then that's your call.Ormond wrote:Oh my, this is far too cowardly for me, but ok, to each their own.
I think it's all futile anyway, that the idea will cost too much to be realistic. The courts pay approx $50 per day here. Legal professionals in the role would earn closer to ten to twenty times that amount. So, instead of paying $600 for a day's trial with twelve jurors, the daily jury payment bill for that one day in that one court would be closer to $6,000. The increase in costs of professional juries would not only be unsustainable in a time when governments already cutting essential services but, as mentioned by others, the scheme also has potential to be corrupted. For instance, if you were on trial for civil disobedience, would you rather be judged by randomly selected strangers or those on The Establishment's payroll?
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
I have long hippy hair and a giant mustache, so if I can just get the orange jail jump suit to go with my letter above I should be a slam dunk candidate for the defense. Oh, and by the way counselor, did I mention I'm not wearing any underwear? I'm over the top now for sure...Generally, defence lawyers reject those who appear most conservative.
You are giving wise advice, I agree, I really do. I may not be wise enough to heed it though. The thing is, situations like being herded around like sheep in a courthouse by state employees are so intensely boring that if I don't do something to make it interesting I might go insane.Okay, do what you will. My advice is just to choose your battles well. If this jury issue is important enough to you to expose yourself to the risks of prison, then that's your call.
For now, I think I'm safe so long as I don't try to give a speech in court, and drop the idea of wearing prison-like pajamas with the words "SLAVE LABOR" stamped in big letters on the back. Oh god I wanna do that so much! But I think I can restrain myself that far at least.
Yes, this is the standard complaint with such a proposal. What everyone seems to forget is that the entire court, minus private defense council, are already all on the state's payroll. The judge, state's attorney, public defenders, court staff, the lot of them, all on the state's payroll. Even the jurors are on the state's payroll, just at a lower payscale.For instance, if you were on trial for civil disobedience, would you rather be judged by randomly selected strangers or those on The Establishment's payroll?
Please observe how it is assumed juries would be corrupted by being elevated to professional status (which would include considerably more training) and nobody seems concerned about all the other members of the court being corrupted by their paychecks.
To me, this is just further evidence that despite the politically correct moralistic mantras chanted in court, the state does NOT respect the contributions of jurors.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
You are a goner!Ormond wrote:I have long hippy hair and a giant mustache, so if I can just get the orange jail jump suit to go with my letter above I should be a slam dunk candidate for the defense.
I worked with the A-G dept for years in various roles. I can assure you that a lot of staff do not care and most would be silently cheering you on. It's the few who do care who you need to worry about.
For instance, if you were on trial for civil disobedience, would you rather be judged by randomly selected strangers or those on The Establishment's payroll?
It's a smaller issue than the cost, which would be crippling. Legal costs are insane.Ormond wrote:Yes, this is the standard complaint with such a proposal.
Jurors don't feel loyalty to the government for the pittance they are forced to accept. They will always be harder to coerce into a decision than pro jurors whose careers depend on their seniors in the court. I expect they'd probably be casuals on retainer, so if they get on the wrong side of judges or prosecutors then they won't be offered more work.Ormond wrote:What everyone seems to forget is that the entire court, minus private defense council, are already all on the state's payroll. The judge, state's attorney, public defenders, court staff, the lot of them, all on the state's payroll. Even the jurors are on the state's payroll, just at a lower payscale.
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Sorry, what is A-G dept? As you can clearly see, I'm an expert on these matters.I worked with the A-G dept for years in various roles.
Can you expand on this please? Why would some be cheering me on, and what might the others do?I can assure you that a lot of staff do not care and most would be silently cheering you on. It's the few who do care who you need to worry about.
My argument is that slave labor is not an acceptable solution to the high costs of anything.It's a smaller issue than the cost, which would be crippling. Legal costs are insane.
Also, I'm not proposing that jurors be paid the same as judges and attorney's. Only enough so that intelligent people would be willing to volunteer in sufficient numbers.
It's really a question of who is going to bear the cost of jury trials. My argument is that spreading the cost over the entire tax paying population is the fairest way to distribute the burden.
Yes, but other biases may be introduced. As example, have you considered that jurors are in a position similar to defendants, forced to attend against their will? Also, jurors whose primary concern is when they get to go home may lean towards the state on the reasoning that the police don't arrest innocent people, so let's hurry up and get this over with. I'm arguing that all jury systems will come with some level of built in bias.Jurors don't feel loyalty to the government for the pittance they are forced to accept.
Ok, that's a problem, so let's solve it. Surely there must be some mechanism by which jurors can be made independent of the state attorney and defense. If we are suspecting judges of being in cahoots with the state attorney, then we have a much bigger problem than the jury pool, yes?They will always be harder to coerce into a decision than pro jurors whose careers depend on their seniors in the court. I expect they'd probably be casuals on retainer, so if they get on the wrong side of judges or prosecutors then they won't be offered more work.
One of the things that engages me about this issue, or any issue, is that the conscripted jury system is a widely accepted group consensus that seems quite vulnerable to challenge. It always interests me when everybody thinks XYZ, but maybe XYZ is not true at all.
Thanks for engaging with me, you seem knowledgeable, and I need folks to talk with on this.
-
- Posts: 239
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:23 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Greta
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Still considering your proposal of professional jurors. But I absolutely love your moxie!Ormond wrote:The thing is, situations like being herded around like sheep in a courthouse by state employees are so intensely boring that if I don't do something to make it interesting I might go insane.
...wearing prison-like pajamas with the words "SLAVE LABOR" stamped in big letters on the back. Oh god I wanna do that so much!
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
The Attorney General's Dept. I was working there and I was not the only person who enjoyed seeing a little amusing subversiveness. Many workers in all industries have a healthy distrust of the executive, but must feign respect to keep their job.Ormond wrote:Sorry, what is A-G dept? As you can clearly see, I'm an expert on these matters.I worked with the A-G dept for years in various roles.
Can you expand on this please? Why would some be cheering me on, and what might the others do?I can assure you that a lot of staff do not care and most would be silently cheering you on. It's the few who do care who you need to worry about.
It's a smaller issue than the cost, which would be crippling. Legal costs are insane.
"slave labour"? I think you should ask bona fide slaves about the terrible suffering one must endure in jury duty. Mountains and molehills, ole pal.Ormond wrote:My argument is that slave labor is not an acceptable solution to the high costs of anything.
Pay peanuts and you get monkeys - and they'll be are open to graft to augment their meagre peanut ration.Ormond wrote:Also, I'm not proposing that jurors be paid the same as judges and attorney's. Only enough so that intelligent people would be willing to volunteer in sufficient numbers.
Court costs already come from general revenue, and their budgets enjoy more statutory protections than most areas due to their crucial role in society.Ormond wrote:It's really a question of who is going to bear the cost of jury trials. My argument is that spreading the cost over the entire tax paying population is the fairest way to distribute the burden.
They will always be harder to coerce into a decision than pro jurors whose careers depend on their seniors in the court. I expect they'd probably be casuals on retainer, so if they get on the wrong side of judges or prosecutors then they won't be offered more work.
The judge and the prosecutor will have their own agendas, but each will have influence over junior staff's careers. They don't need to be in cahoots for the underlings to be intimidated, nor do they need formal reporting lines. In my experience, when a legal eagle is peeved with you, you have real trouble on your hands.Ormond wrote:Ok, that's a problem, so let's solve it. Surely there must be some mechanism by which jurors can be made independent of the state attorney and defense. If we are suspecting judges of being in cahoots with the state attorney, then we have a much bigger problem than the jury pool, yes?
It's not a big enough issue for most to care about it. The way it usually goes is this: those who really don't want to do it usually find an excuse by working the loopholes. The most common excuse is hardship, for self employed persons with tight profit margins, carers, and others who cannot afford it.Ormond wrote:One of the things that engages me about this issue, or any issue, is that the conscripted jury system is a widely accepted group consensus that seems quite vulnerable to challenge. It always interests me when everybody thinks XYZ, but maybe XYZ is not true at all.
Some people are actually excited to do it. My business partner enjoys going to trials just to observe. They bore me to tears but he finds it interesting. When I worked in a legal office the receptionist used to love watching the recordings of the hearings: she'd watch it like she'd watch a whodunnit (and yes, she went on to study law last I heard).
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
Thanks Gary! I'm sure the judge will agree. By the way, can I use you as a character reference so you'll be arrested too? Thanks for volunteering!Gary S wrote:Still considering your proposal of professional jurors. But I absolutely love your moxie!
I must admit, I have an obsessive compulsive disorder when it comes to any widely shared group consensus which might actually be false, like the "earth is flat" assumption of ancient times. I smell such a phenomena here, and don't seem ready to let it go.
The primary rationale for a conscripted amateur jury seems to be that making jurors pros could create a bias for the state. The group consensus reasoning error may be that upon seeing this potential issue, we then conclude "ah, there's a bias problem with pro jurors thus we can't go there." There may very well be a bias problem with pro jurors, that seems the wrong question to me. The right question would seem to be...
Which of the various ways we might create juries involves the fewest problems?
From that question, I don't see a good case for the current system. As example....
-----------
Do we want randomly selected amateur jurors whose main understanding of the criminal justice system comes from cop shows on TV?
OR:
Do we want screened, trained, certified and licensed jurors who have to meet professional standards, like every other officer of the court?
-----------
I don't accept that pro jurors will become beholden to the judge and prosecutor, because there's no reason we can't establish a separate agency to do the hiring, firing, training etc of pro jurors. Thus, the court, judge and prosecutor would have no say over who is a juror, only over who serves on a particular jury.
Using Greta's wise advice, I have decided to substantially reduce the length of my letter to the court, and shift the focus a bit to "I don't feel qualified to be a juror" from the more sweeping "none of us are so qualified".
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: An Argument For Professional Trial Juries
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023