I am sceptical about the jury system as a way to serve justice

[noname223]

I can remember when I talked bad about the US justice system once in this forum. My knowledge was as usual not very in-depth. I offended some people with half knowledge that I spread. Some of these US-citizens had way more expertise on it than me. Maybe or probably I am biased. I deleted the thread after receiving two angry reactions and some not that positive comments.

I can remember some people supported what I had said. Even one person who was very popular and I liked him a lot. He is gone since a long time and I am still sad about that fact.

My knowledge about the US justice system consists of some media articles/reportings, cases like the Johnny Depp court trial , depiction in fictional series. I think in the German media they are very critical about the justice system in the US. But I think there are different philosophies..

I find it weird how much money one single person can get by suing a company. In my country there are instead like collective complaints and the money is divided as far as I know. It seems more fair to me.

Now to the main topic. The jury system. In my country there is no jury system. I don't really trust it. That is probably due to the fact in which country I grew up. Other values etc. I think it is no good idea letting a crowd of laymen decide about complex judicial issues. I think most people are sheep. There is often peer pressure. Moreover I think the media reporting probably influences the jury members a lot. A professional judge might be more immune to that. Not fully but maybe more than laymen. I think especially in cases of celebritites a jury is no good idea. Due to the fact that many people idolize such people. Furhermore it is complicated to find a proper jury. But honestly I don't know details about the way how they choose the members. That is in my opinion not the main problem.

I tried to be less pejorative than the last time. I hope that was successful. Moreover the jury system is not only widespread in the US way more countries have it. So I don't explicitly criticize the US.

 

[[HNO]]

judicial systems across the world have similarities i think
surprisingly courts in all countries which have label 'democratic regime' everyday produce injustices leaking in media with one similarity in every case that outcome of a case decided by money either of sides have and that logic in judicial outcome of some horrid crimes gravely violated for some reason .
as above so below, biased jury system it's just a part of the system

 

[Teddybear]

In my experience every justice system is just as good as the people it serves

If your society is all messed up, then no genious court system can compensate for that.

But if your country works as a whole, then a sloppy justice machinery will just produce a lot of jokes

 

[broken_songbird]

I can remember when I talked bad about the US justice system once in this forum. My knowledge was as usual not very in-depth. I offended some people with half knowledge that I spread. Some of these US-citizens had way more expertise on it than me. Maybe or probably I am biased. I deleted the thread after receiving two angry reactions and some not that positive comments.

I can remember some people supported what I had said. Even one person who was very popular and I liked him a lot. He is gone since a long time and I am still sad about that fact.

My knowledge about the US justice system consists of some media articles/reportings, cases like the Johnny Depp court trial , depiction in fictional series. I think in the German media they are very critical about the justice system in the US. But I think there are different philosophies..

I find it weird how much money one single person can get by suing a company. In my country there are instead like collective complaints and the money is divided as far as I know. It seems more fair to me.

Now to the main topic. The jury system. In my country there is no jury system. I don't really trust it. That is probably due to the fact in which country I grew up. Other values etc. I think it is no good idea letting a crowd of laymen decide about complex judicial issues. I think most people are sheep. There is often peer pressure. Moreover I think the media reporting probably influences the jury members a lot. A professional judge might be more immune to that. Not fully but maybe more than laymen. I think especially in cases of celebritites a jury is no good idea. Due to the fact that many people idolize such people. Furhermore it is complicated to find a proper jury. But honestly I don't know details about the way how they choose the members. That is in my opinion not the main problem.

I tried to be less pejorative than the last time. I hope that was successful. Moreover the jury system is not only widespread in the US way more countries have it. So I don't explicitly criticize the US.

All of this is very well argued from your point of view. I appreciate it a lot because in the US the media craps all over other countries, but the US is clearly NOT number one. We refer to our country as "America," but America is an entire hemisphere. Our justice system is so skewed it would be hilarious if folks weren't constantly getting hurt by it. You identified the jury system in particular very accurately - it's a joke.

It's well documented that people are sheep, just like you said, and the likelihood of one jury member expressing a true opinion against eleven others (or even three others and eight quiet ones) is extremely slim. Have you heard about the studies where participants delivered electric shock to other participants even until they passed out? The people receiving electric shocks weren't actually being electrocuted, but the participants delivering the shocks didn't know that. The vast majority continued shocking other human people into unconsciousness simply because a doctor told them to. These were average folks acting like sadists - the same average folks who are called into jury duty.

It's my experience that in the court system (just like most other big systems) it's less about hard evidence and more about how much money a person has and how well they parade it around in court. It's so much easier to believe a person with money and a lawyer and good theatrics. I've always been passionate about social justice and considered law school, but ultimately went into medical physics because it's a lot more fun and I don't have to deal with lawyers. Yuck. Overpaid clowns, most of them. Crooks capitalizing on the misfortune of others.

I don't know what the answer is, but I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the problem. You nailed it, even from far away.

Also, I'm sorry about your friend. <3

In my experience every justice system is just as good as the people it serves

If your society is all messed up, then no genious court system can compensate for that.

But if your country works as a whole, then a sloppy justice machinery will just produce a lot of jokes

This is really beautiful. I hadn't thought about it this way before. Thank you. <3

 

[callme]

The simple thought behind fairness of a jury is equal representation of different groups in society. Much more important to have a working mom and a black entrepreneur in there than have whoever poses as a "criminal" receive fair judgement even if guilty, pffft. Ordinarily I wouldn't blame anybody of their characteristics at birth, but when a grand decision is on them and they have been on the side of the condemned and act righteous, they are nothing but actors in bad faith.

Similar to immigrants who put their life on line working illegal jobs and wasting their health but vote to cut off immigration.

All this is encouraged by a system expert and fit down to excellence to put us up against each other. No hairs to split, nothing new to see. It's already well enough said without a system that forces a way of thinking, any way as long as it encourages thinking, largely deployed as the only means of at least passing down what we think is justice, no amount of justice can fix stupidry. In fact, it can make it worse, because justice is already a skewed and complicated thing which may as well just be made up, you know, doubt nature is all good or all bad, or can be.

The more stupid we get, the more justice will be deranged.

 

[Smart No More]

It's really hard to come up with a fairer way to do it but the system as it is is essentially a dice role.

When it comes ro law abd government there seems to be this inclination to keep adding new caveats and bills. The more convoluted it becomes the protracted everything gets and the more potential for injustice there is. It becomes a tool for the ill willed masquerading as bringers of justice. You can be a law abiding citizen and a horrendous human at the same time. Crimes aren't only quantified by law.

 

[𖣴 nadia 𖣴]

I think all these criticisms are valid, just would like to add a few more (disclaimer - I don't have a lot of knowledge of law and this is isn't specific to US courts) but it's worrying that the jury isn't usually educated on just how unreliable eye witness testimonies can be from a psychological standpoint. For example, when witnessing an armed assailant, our eyes naturally zone-in on and follow the weapon, for survival reasons, and not the person holding the weapon, this can mean we get the details of their clothing or facial features wrong.

Another problem is that some people have trouble recollecting accurate details in a high-stress situation like that. But we're usually very confident of the accuracy of our own memories and the confidence of an eye witness can make the jurors accept their account as fact, however our memories are more unreliable than most people like to believe. There have been memory studies where people were asked where they were when they heard about the 9/11 attacks and a good percentage of people got the details of their surroundings wrong despite having a vivid memory of the event.

Another thing jurors are not reminded is that when a witness is asked to select someone from a line-up they can feel a certain pressure to identify *someone* (sometimes incorrectly) rather than no-one, especially if the crime was violent. Other reasons for errors in identification include poor vision, viewing conditions and the perpetrator being of a different race.

Another problem is that investigators can impact a testimony by using a leading question or carelessly phrasing a question e.g. "Did you see *the* broken headlight" vs "did you see *a* broken headlight" - this can contaminate a memory and make a witness answer yes incorrectly. Talking to other eye witnesses at the scene of a crime can also have this effect (the misinformation effect). I think it's vital that jurors are educated about all of this before a trial because the accuracy of eye witness testimonies is still strongly overestimated.

 

[Smart No More]

I agree. Memory is really unreliable. Funnily enough you may have proved your point quite well as I think (I could be wrong) the memory test surrounding 9/11 you referred too was a bit different. The question was "where were you when you saw the first of the two planes hit?". Many recounted seeing it happen however it wasn't broadcast anywhere until the following day.

 

[𖣴 nadia 𖣴]

More than one memory study was carried out on the event, I was referring to the one carried out by Talarico and Rubin, they asked people to recount details of when they first heard the news of 9/11. But, like you mentioned, there are also other studies where they exclusively interviewed eye witnesses.

 

[Smart No More]

More than one memory study was carried out on the event, I was referring to the one carried out by Talarico and Rubin, they asked people to recount details of when they first heard the news of 9/11. But, like you mentioned, there are also other studies where they exclusively interviewed eye witnesses.

Ah my mistake.



The study I referred (just for the sake of clarity) was of people that watched it on TV. They weren't eye witnesses. They were asked to recount where they were and how they felt when they first saw the first of two planes aired. They of course all said they saw two planes aired hitting the first tower however no footage of that was aired on that day. (I dare say I butchered the specific question/study details lol). Either way it holds up your point. Memory is so unreliable and open to influence.

What's crazy is that it's well know to be the case (it's a commonly exploited phenomenon, used by magicians and film makers) and still we rely on it because it's the best we have which has some pretty worrying connotations.

 

[Chinaski]

Jurors are educated pre-trial, in as much as they are given an established route to verdict, are informed on how proceedings will follow and are left in absolutely no uncertainty as to what the phrase "meaningful doubt" is. Jurors can not be educated on the quality of evidence, such as eye witness testimony and scientific evidence. That is solely for them to decide, and this is as it should be.

There are many valid criticisms of the justice system in the UK, l could list them but that would derail. One of its crucial assets is that a trial will take place in front of twelve of your peers, not by a couple of state employees. You will be entitled to a defence, and the defence will sow the seed of doubt when cross-examining eye witnesses and analysing evidence. Some jurors may be stupid, some may be lazy, others will be intelligent and dedicated. This is why there are twelve of them, and not just one.

When criminal justice fails the community it is supposed to serve, this is never down to the jury, who in all cases make an objective assessment of the evidence presented to them, weigh this up against the rebuttals of the defence, and only pass a guilty verdict when they are satisfied the guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. This is how it should be, any alternative to this would not be in the interests of justice.