I saw an article talking about how the jurors may be bored at Rajat Gupta's trial. They were praised for being attentive.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/goldman…
I am rather disheartened by this.
Your fate is being decided by 12 average Americans. These are the people who were unable to successfully dodge jury duty. Should we really trust the "wisdom of the masses" in modern legal settings, when trials often hinge on expert testimony and highly technical evidence?
It turns the trial into a showroom, pandering to the jurors like a politician panders to constituents. I wouldn't feel comfortable betting my life on whether my lawyer can outsell the other guy.
Do you believe this contributes to the rise of settlements and arbitration/mediation? Or is that just a response to rising legal costs?
Then you are supposed to go before a "jury of one's peers". In business law cases, this is hardly ever true. Rajat's peers are senior bankers and consultants. There is a decent chance that somebody on that jury has never bought a stock of any kind.
Are juries even appropriate now? Or should cases be heard before a judge or qualified 3rd party?
One of my biggest worries concerns the general level of intelligence and common sense amongst the average American today. Everyday I see at least one thing that reminds me of how stupid people are... its unbelievable. What I'm getting at is I think people are too dumb now-a-days to be put in charge of deciding important shit like the outcome of cases. Do I hate the system as a system? No, not at all. If I thought the population was intelligent, I'd love it. This may work in other countries, but not here.... were wayyyyyy too fukin stupid, lmao
Think about how stupid the average American is. Then realize that half of Americans, by definition, have to be DUMBER than that. So right off the bat, there's 6 of the people deciding your fate that are clinically retarded. Now think about all the generally intelligent, successful, and upstanding people you know who find ways to avoid jury duty. It's not hard to do - my dad does it all the time (and so can you) by either 1) acting like a flaming racist, 2) getting his judge friend(s) to get him out or, what I do, 3) not being in the registry. Most people who work for themselves or must actually be AT WORK to get paid can't afford to take a week or two off for jury duty. But guess who can? Government employees, unemployed people, etc. Teachers LOVE jury duty, and I would imagine unemployed people would volunteer for it if given the chance (free meals, small stipend, etc). So for argument's sake, let's give another 2-3 spots to the borderline retards and say that about 75% of the people who are potentially deciding whether you live or die are likely too incompetent to even understand the crime you committed or the laws governing it.
That's why I love this country, will be able to get away with whatever I want for the duration of my stay on this planet, and have (and will continue) to never vote.
At any rate, I do see a jury system as being flawed. Let the law be handled by people who can figure it out.
Haha ya ya median stupidity same thing. George Carlin still deserves credit for that little tidbit
AHAHAHAH can we please be friends.
You realize both the lawyers and prosecutors question the jurors beforehand. A good lawyer will cherry pick his jurors until he feels its fair. All you need is that one juror to agree with you for a hung jury. Jury trials are actually really beneficial and are easily won by good lawyers (Casey Anthony Trial).
But if you don't want a jury trial, you don't have to have one. But I would think I would rather my fate be in the hands of "average" Americans than some judge who is gonna make an example of me so he can get reelected as a "tough" judge. Do you think it is easier for an average person or a hardened judge to send someone to prison for a long time?
Don't think Casey Anthony won because she had a good lawyer, I think the state lost because their prosecutor was terrible. Even the jurors commented post-trial that the prosecutor did a poor job of presenting the case.
I agree with the above comments on today's average jury composition: Six are on the way to a bingo hall, six are on welfare.
Don't hate on Jose, he totally worked it.
I watched the entire trial and I definitely agreed with what you've stated here. Prosecution did an absolutely terrible job presenting circumstantial evidence to get the conviction. Instead, they laid all of their eggs in the basket of trying to character assassinate her by being a chronic party fiend of loose morals. If they would have actually presented the facts and rebuked all of the falsities the defense was laying forward, they might have actually gotten some sort of conviction.
how bout we stop wurryin bout this jury ish, lets figure out who shot Pac first then we can wurry bout the jury selection i want him 2 fry just as bad as yall but we gotta find him first
The world would be much cooler with judge dredd.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1luLRXKoJM8/Sc4rTB5XnMI/AAAAAAAAPiU/6L3n5DN0K…
[quote=seabird]The world would be much cooler with judge dredd.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1luLRXKoJM8/Sc4rTB5XnMI/AAAAAAAAPiU/6L3n5DN0K…]
I am the law.
I AM THE LAW!
The politics of judges scare me too, as does their lack of specific knowledge. Judges are former lawyers, most of whom have been out of practice for years or decades.
Look at some of those RIAA judgements when the defendant did not settle. It's like when a technology bill hits congress, and it's clear some of the older statesmen have never used Word, let alone the internet.
In the same vein, you might have a judge or jury ruling on an issue in finance beyond the knowledge of many people in finance. I won't even pretend I understand every product put out by derivatives desks, and I am in finance. But we would have a judge/jury, who may not have more than High School math and has never taken an accounting course, rule on it?
I have a lot of complaints about the tax court (guilty until proven innocent chief among them), but it seems like a better system. You have judges ruling on tax issues who do nothing but rule on tax issues. It seems like they might have a better understanding of the law. Thankfully, I have never been in tax court, but does anyone have experience with specialized courts (patent, tax, etc.?)
What's really interesting is how much power 9 very above average Americans are actually able to wield if you think about it
Yep. And they're appointed in an increasingly politicized process.
The jury system itself is fine, the procedural definition of 'peers' is in need of updating.
This.
I agree with UFO. I had an old HS teacher back in the day (teaches at Notre Dame now) who came into class one day bragging about how he dodged jury duty. When we asked him whether he felt like he was skipping out on his civic duty, he just said "Those people aren't my peers."
It's a shame, but in trials you really are having your fate determined by 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
And Andy fix this formatting please!
Let's float some ideas for a solution. Professional jurors? Income/education cutoff? No exemptions?
The legal system here is one of the better ones on earth, let's shoot for best
Lawyers will pick jurors that they think will side with them. It's not flawed, don't think you can fix it. Hire yourself a lawyer that will know how to weed out any wall street bias. It is a lawyers job to educate the jury anyway. I'd rather they be ignorant of the industry anyway. A good lawyer will get them to see your side if he picked them right without any bias.
Trust me, lawyers choose jury trials over judges because they believe it gives their client a better chance to win the case. Why is everyone on here wanting to make it harder to win a case?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
I got booted from jury duty because the case was directly related to my professional background and one team didn't want a juror who fully understood the details of the case. I had nothing to gain from either side winning and this deeply disturbed me. I'm merely floating ideas around, your objections are valid but I still think a systemic upgrade is needed
Blackhat - I love scalia. And I love this depiction of him.
The jury system actually works fine. You can replace it with a judge if you want but you will get similar results believe or not.
I was part of a jury as an alternate while in College. I gotta say jurors take their "job" very seriously and I was surprise how they were into it.
I also agree with the fact that your peers are the average citizen. You peer cannot be the average banker/consultant/doctor because they may feel their profession is being attacked or may know your firm/yourself or may have a bias against your method of doing business. On the other hand, the average citizen created the law by voting for lawmakers, so they are the right people for crimes related offenses.
You can also have judges doing the job and you will need trust of impartiality.
If the jury is actually made up of peers then it works well. I don't for one minute think that the average American is stupid. Some in the government hope that we are, especially the administration but anyway, juries are always the way to go over a judge who might need to get re-elected. I do agree with the poster who stated that the Casey Anthony trial was lost by the prosecution, not won by the defense.
If the media would stop making trials into something like bonus codes then the jury might have more credibility in cases.
IDK what your talking about. Have you been to jury selection?
I was in a room with people who were being manipulated so heavily by the lawyers I was laughing, they asked what's funny and I told them you guys are taking everyone for a spin. They literally were asking some poor schmuck who couldn't read or articulate what he does on a daily basis to make a decision with a person's life. Then another women was there and they were tesing her for BIASES, this had to be the most biased individual I ever seen.
5 minutes later I was outside negotiating with one of the lawyers for a pay-off. Ye, welcome to our jury system. BE VERY VERY AFRAID!!!
They ended up choosing all minorities.
The guy was such a skilled salesman. He would've made a killing as a stock broker.
I declined and got pardoned for the next 8 years as I had other engagements on that date.
Rem maiores voluptatum incidunt deleniti neque qui rerum vitae. Voluptatem esse voluptatibus molestias quisquam impedit quo aliquid. Ut nam animi voluptatibus tenetur praesentium.
Ut porro aspernatur impedit facilis explicabo. Delectus veniam rerum nisi nihil atque porro ut. Ex nemo qui fugiat magnam laborum. Laborum expedita illum quas ut repudiandae.
Magnam dignissimos saepe est ut. Ut nobis est saepe minus. Iste cum voluptate et illo. Reprehenderit voluptas ullam qui temporibus. Consequatur omnis dolorem doloremque fugiat dolor dolorem. Expedita repellendus deserunt doloribus eaque necessitatibus. Voluptates ut eos esse exercitationem est asperiores nisi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Inventore dignissimos cum ullam sed amet quaerat. Error numquam explicabo sed non autem facere. Dolorum praesentium quibusdam sed molestiae consequuntur. Assumenda nostrum quod hic non.
Est soluta at eum ratione eos facere. Repellat blanditiis ducimus est non. Consectetur maxime totam quibusdam placeat. Distinctio qui omnis ratione repellat non voluptas.
Quod id repellat inventore. Omnis esse eaque qui aut omnis et voluptates nulla. Libero dignissimos consequatur dignissimos quas. Quia nesciunt rerum praesentium eveniet. Voluptatibus perspiciatis enim placeat inventore rerum et beatae. Eum reprehenderit esse recusandae aut voluptas architecto saepe.