<p>“I respect the system, but I question how well it works in anything but slam dunk simple cases. (Of course, the OJ trial shows us that they can screw those up too. )” The problem with that is that juries have gotten ‘slam dunk simple’ cases totally right according to most people, and then we find out that more then likely an innocent person was convicted. I suspect most slam dunk cases never make it to trial, the lawyers and prosecutors probably plea bargain them not to waste court time.</p>
<p>" I don’t think the average juror is capable of figuring out sophisticated, complicated cases. "</p>
<p>That could be, though I also will add maybe the problem is that prosecutors an lawyers in general don’t know how to explain their sophisticated cases correctly (and maybe it in fact is impossible). In The OJ case, they had jurors who said about the DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene, that blood type could be any of millions of people, when the experts said that the odds of someone having a dna match the same as Simpson’s was millions to one. I think part of the problem is that cases have become sophisticated, in a white collar crime case, like investment fraud and the like, you are talking very complex situations where jurors are expected to weight the evidence of experts who often talk in jargon, and you have experts seeming to contradict each other, and it is very hard for juries to figure it out.</p>
<p>Juries are all too human. Others are correct that juries are not supposed to take the possible penalties into account, any more then they are not supposed to take sympathy or disdain for the defendant into account, but they do. I wasn’t aware the jury had other options open in terms of what they could vote to convict on, from the law professor’s argument I thought they only could deliberate on murder 1. It could be the professor was arguing that even though other options were open, the prosecutor seeking the death penalty makes a jury a lot more reluctant to convict, those were his words, not mine.</p>
<p>Someone I think quoted another NY Times article (it was about the two cops in NYC charged with raping a drunk young woman after taking her back to her apartment, and going back several times) and what it said was that juries these days more and more expect physical evidence when convicting. The cop case was similar to Casey’s, I think most people, other then the PBA, believed the cops were guilty as charged (basically, the cops lied about what they had done that night, falsified logs, and the cop went back 3 times to the apartment, and even admitted lying with the woman in the bed…), but the jury refused to convict because there was absolutely no physical evidence of sexual intercourse (there was evidence admitted about the state of the women’s vaginal canal, but there were experts for the defense who said it didn’t prove there had been sexual contact), same kind of circumstantial case. </p>
<p>I kind of wonder is with the abundance of shows like CSI and with all the cases of defendants let off death row or jail because of DNA evidence if they aren’t now expecting physical evidence since on tv they always find the evidence, etc…</p>
<p>The problem is, what do you replace it with? Professional juries, besides the cost, could be subject to political pressure, their salaries, their ratings, would come from the state, and for example, jurors could be fired if some governor or whatever didn’t like a verdict or if a juror hung a jury. Given the cost cutting mood our governments are in, how would a professional jury system happen?</p>
<p>Judges doing trials can be even worse, the jury system came about because judges are generally political figures who are in many cases faced with being re-elected. Suppose a judge let off a vile murder suspect in a bench trial, one most people considered guilty, think he wouldn’t realize that could be the end of his career? (This has happened, btw, it isn’t that uncommon).</p>
<p>Personally, i think with the Jury system that people need training. Once upon a time, before bean counters and the 3rs crowd came along, they used to have courses in school called civics, that talked about the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen, that grounded people in how things work. Maybe we should have something like that in school, where young adults in high school learn about the jury system and what it takes to be a juror, about what things like reasonable doubt mean, what they are supposed to do. I know from my experience on jury duty, they usually show some idiotic video on being a juror that is next to useless…</p>
<p>Is the jury system flawed? Yes, it is, but it to me is kind of like what Churchill said of capitalism, it is the worst economic system around, except when compared to the rest of them:)</p>