Peer jury

Problems with juries are numerous. First, we are a nation fed a steady diet of media dictate. We are conditioned to listen, but not to formulate our own thoughts. We hear and see steady streams of plausibility on a daily basis. One couldn't conceive a better means of thought conditioning.

That we are fed these steady streams weakens our capacity to fill in the blanks on our own, say as compared to if we needed to rely on our imagination more often - at least on issues that required thought. In a Jury, that is in fact what we are required to do, fill in the blanks. That's what the judge orders us to do, it is our duty, but we almost all suck at it. A jury of peers is supposed to take primarily circumstantial evidence and make a judgemental determination as to its likelihood of being true. But only a few individuals in our society can do that without the help of bigot radio.

Jury trials are almost always the result of weak evidence, as many criminals are careful not to leave much. The juror is required to infer guilt or innocence. This means that gut feeling is paramount on the list of evidence for a juror. When a juror claims insufficient evidence, it is lying, as it is the jury's responsibility to supply the missing evidence based on their life experience.

Often times, the jury never even gets to see all the evidence, as much of it is bargained away between the judge and the lawyers well before the trial. In addition, the judge dictates the scope of the jury's decisions, although only with regard to points of law, still there is a substantial margin for subjective influence. The members of the jury have no say in any of this, yet the jury has to make the decision. How does that make sense? How can being deprived of evidence and breadth of scope result in an optimal decision?

That is what has been bugging me though. I keep wondering what the real rules are for a juror? What rights does a juror have? Does a jury have to base its decision on strict facts or can a minority juror, frustrated with arguing with cartoon characters, simply refuse to change their vote, without giving a reason? Can a juror hire an attorney? If the judge says no to something, what does the law say? What happens with a hung jury, is that a mistrial? Can one juror hang a jury without giving a reason and still be respected by the court?

So many questions that our education system, the point of which is to teach us all how to be citizens, has failed to provide us with the answers to. Once we're old, even if we may have learned some of these things in school, how can be keep them fresh in our minds when only fools trust the media? And for good reason.

We all know that when there are gaps in the evidence, it automatically opens up an opportunity to oppress minorities. Though in a republic, there should be no such entity as a minority, or a majority. Individuals should all be respected equally. Only in a democracy does history show us minorities and majorities, which is why our constitution guaranteed every state the right to a republican form of government and not a democratic form of government.

Perhaps juries should be divided three ways, with a minimum of a third of the jurors educated beyond highschool. and another third represented by a government official of some sort. Coupled with checks and balances to keep each other in line. If the Jury represents the democratic third of the justice process, it requires more checks and balances over the judges and lawyers.

Peace,
Lou