PDA

View Full Version : Smart Jurors


TRIFORCE89
July 6th, 2011, 07:02 PM
I heard something interesting today.

Apparently, in France, they use "professional" jurors. People they call upon frequently. Academics, intellectuals, scientists, doctors, scholars, ... educated people with at least half a brain essentially.

On top of that, the jury can vote on sentencing themselves and even veto a judge's sentencing decision if needed.

What do you think of that system?



And, if you're from France, feel free to correct anything I wrote here.

Myles
July 6th, 2011, 07:15 PM
Doesn't sound like a very good system. The 'smart jurors' would provide a bias. While in most cases it might not be a problem, there may be a case that is against say, a university; there would be a bias towards people who had gone to university, etc.

And the judge is an important part of the process. They understand the law, the jurors are really only there to provide an unbiased look on what the evidence points to, whereas sentencing requires an intricate knowledge of the law and it isn't extremely open to bias.

FreakyLocz14
July 6th, 2011, 07:27 PM
The judge is the educated one, while the jury are the unbiased laymen. It provides a balance that way.

HarrisonH
July 6th, 2011, 07:30 PM
On top of that, the jury can vote on sentencing themselves and even veto a judge's decision if needed.


We kinda have the veto decision already. It's called jury nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification).

Esper
July 6th, 2011, 08:31 PM
It's an interesting idea. I wonder what the people of France think of it. I'd worry about bias from a group that's too similar.

The judge is the educated one, while the jury are the unbiased laymen. It provides a balance that way.
Well, laymen can come with their own biases, too. No system is perfect, but having a mix of professionals (a.k.a. a judge) and non-professionals (a.k.a. jury of peers) is probably good enough to make sure justice is done.

FreakyLocz14
July 6th, 2011, 08:55 PM
Well, laymen can come with their own biases, too. No system is perfect, but having a mix of professionals (a.k.a. a judge) and non-professionals (a.k.a. jury of peers) is probably good enough to make sure justice is done.

There is usually an extensive jury selection process to select a jury that both the prosecution and the defense are content with.