Fascinating.

There aren’t enough judges to go around to create a tribunal system.

Jurors should be limited to people between age 25 and 60 and pass a test which examines their ability to think logically. Frankly because of idiot jurors if I was falsely accused of a crime in a lawsuit I would settle if I could afford it. I wouldn’t trust the jury system at all. Too many innocent people have been…

At the very least I don’t think jurors should be in the room. They should get a written transcript with identities and ethnicity and gender taken out if not relevant to the case. Of course since a lot of people are shitty readers we might need to have androgynous computer voices read the transcript.

They aren’t obligatory. One can decide to have a bench trial and have the case ajudicated by a judge instead of a jury.

No problem state level judiciary’s are a total hodgepodge and vary from state to state it’s both interesting and very annoying.

I’m a Canadian lawyer and completely agree. Won’t get in to the reasons here but the short is yes, it should be abolished. The jury pool is no longer sufficiently representative to offer many people a “jury of their peers”

Not all judges are elected it depends on the county. All federal judges are appointed not elected but I don’t really know how difficult it is to be appointed.

I honestly really worried about this, knowing they picked the jurors from my area. Which, on the whole, is one of the best places to live in the country nowadays (actually named #1 in surveys).

Its a little more complicated than that - Judges determine questions of law, juries determine questions of fact. The theory is that judges are experts in the law but have no more ability to determined the factual events of a given case than anybody else - better to trust 12 people than a single judge in that regard. …

Well, it is kinda hard to argue for it when that poor kid got railroaded by his own community in that “Making a Murderer” trial.

Just got bounced from jury seating, Trader Joe’s was the defendant.  The first of my adulthood.

What about a system where the jury is chosen, not by lawyers and their high-priced jury consultants through voir dire but by computer? You’re selected for jury duty and fill out a questionnaire online about your basic biases (this person is acceptable for murder trial, this person is acceptable for robbery trial etc)…

Problems with America’s legal system.

I don’t know that judges in the U.S., as a majority, have a sterling reputation when it comes to matters of women’s rights.

That and the selection process is inherently tainted because MOST people can’t or don’t want to serve. The pay is a joke and the time one needs to spend on a jury rule out most people who have jobs. If my job or the state PAID me what I make at work to be there, I’d do it. Most people would but leaving work for an…

But that’s sort of the point. The person accused of a crime is given a ton of advantages at the start (presumption of innocence, high burden of proof, right to a lawyer, etc.) because a) if the government imprisons someone, it should be absolutely sure and b) the government has professional prosecutors on staff, and…

The three scariest words in the English language, “Trial by Jury”. Juries are made up of people so dumb they couldn’t think up an excuse to get out of jury duty.

No, even though flawed juries are necessary and the purest form of democracy. Defendants have a choice whether they want a judge or jury trial as it is so if they opt for a jury (which naturally the defense would want because getting 12 laymen to agree is harder than a seasoned judge).

We’ve seen miscarriages of…

Black people talk about crime within their own communities constantly. You don’t hear about it because it’s a problem that doesn’t effect or involve you, and that you only care about when you need a false equivalency to shutdown discussions about police brutality and racism.