Close Topic Options

A Jury Of Your Peers

In the USA, most criminal cases are heard before a judge and jury (12 people) -- presumably a jury of "peers" of the accused. The dictionary defines "peers" as:

Do you feel on an equal standing with criminals -- their peer?

Do you feel you can fairly judge another person for alleged criminal behavior?

Do you feel qualified to impose a fair punishment on someone convicted of a crime? What if the penalty included the death sentence?

Edited: FarSeer on 3rd Jul, 2004 - 3:19am

Peers Your Jury A

1. No, morally I dont feel on an equal standing, but the point of having a justice system and trial is to assume innocence, not guilt, and therefore I would want to be a peer in that I would hope the same is given to me were the tables turned.

2. No, I dont feel I can individually fairly judge another person, but hopefully a panel of people which comprise a jury can sensibly go through the evidence and arguments provided to come up with a non-biased decision.

3. See point #2. Again, individually I would not feel qualified, but I feel that a group of people can come to a decision based on the laws of the land, etc. If the crime is such where the death penalty is involved, then so be it. It is the responsibility of the individual juror to decide where their comfort level is in prescribing the death penalty and I am sure in such a case each set of lawyers would bring this to the jurors attention before the trial even started.

A Jury Of Your Peers History & Civil Business Politics

While I feel the answer to the 3 questions posed is yes, I still don't believe I would make a good juror. I would never agree to convict someone just because it is the law. If I felt the law was wrong, I wouldn't find them guilty. For example, in California it is (was ? ) legal to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is against Federal law. Someone was tried and convict of breaking the Federal law. I don't think that was fair. This guy was obeying the state law. Now, in the end, the judge just "slapped" his wrist, but I don't think the man should have been tried, period. It isn't up to the individual in society to decide whether to follow a state law or a federal law. I don't want this thread to become about that example, I am just saying I wouldn't be a good juror and that is meant as an example of why. Often you hear jurors after a trial that say, we had no choice, we had to convict them because that was the law. I wouldn't do it. Period. So, I may be there peer, but that still wouldn't qualify me as a juror.

Also, there is a real problem with finding true peers because of the "class" issue. Class is a category of peer. However, in our society most jurors are not made up of people who live in the poorest parts of society, yet a large percentage of criminal defendants do come from that part of society so in that sense it isn't always a jury of your peers. What it really is is a jury of your fellow citizens or people who live in the same general area of the country, county or state.

Peers Your Jury A

I'm actually researching the topic of trial by jury currently and have been for some weeks. As you may know, the EU, being based on European Law (Spanish Inquisition etc!), has no genuine trial by jury and so I have been researching material for an article to get across the crucial importance of jury trial. Quite simply, a country cannot be considered a free one where there is no trial by jury. I firmly believe that.

Tenaheff is absolutely right, in my opinion (and the opinion of many of those whose names are well-known in American and English Common Law), to say she would vote as a juror for a man's innocence even if he did break the law *and* that law was - in her opinion - wrong.

This is called jury nullification. Without this right, this ability, the jury becomes nothing more than a tool of the state to enforce the punishment of the breaking of its laws - just or unjust, correctly applied or misapplied.

Juries have a LOT of power and yet they are not informed of their rights because the Government thinks they will exercise it wrongly - or perhaps against the Government itself?

I think understanding what a jury is will address one of the questions asked by the original poster. A jury is a group of 12 randomly selected citizens who represent the nation as a whole and yet are familiar withe the circumstances of the jurisdiction, being drawn from that area.

They comprise a tribunal that provides a final check on government, a tribune of the country, of the people. They are superior to the court in which they sit and may even hold the judge to account. They may judge not only the accused, but also the law itself and its application. If they find the law to be wrong or if they feel the law to have been wrongly applied they should vote the defendant not guilty regardless of the evidence (and regardless of the instruction of the Judge who will be acting unlawfully if he contradict this right, as they often do).

Hence government can punish no person, nor can it misapply a just law, or fully apply an unjust law, without the consent of the Jury. It is a massive and powerful check on government. Think about it!

The word "peer" has different meanings depending on the context; and dictionaries are notoriously limited in defining nuances. In Britain, for instance, it can also refer to a noblemen, such as the peers of the House of Lords. The word from which it derives also gives us 'par' as in 'on a par with' which might be a better way to describe it than the broad (and often misused) term 'equal'. In any case, I don't think it is referring to criminality

I think it means to be in roughly the same circumstances as, to be observers of the same local occurences, to be independent of government and the court. It is constructed, and rightly so, to favour the defendant and not the Government or Court.

It is always hard to be asked to judge another, but we should remember that where there is no evidence beyond doubt a jury is not asked to convey a guilty verdict regardless of how they might feel about the man. Man-made courts are not the place where decisions are based on the heart and thoughts of others.

Regarding the last question, I should answer yes - a juror is not likely to have the bias of a government official or judge. He decides by his conscience and genuinely asks "is this fair?" whereas the judge or prosecutor has his hidden and vested interests of party, career, money and governmental pressures and conventions. The juror is free of such obstacles which serve only to hinder justice.

I believe in the death penalty but I also believe that I would not vote a person guilty in such a case without evidence beyond doubt which would likely have to include at least 2 witnesses.

To finish, let me quote from one of those organizations seeking to inform people about those things the government will not regarding the strength and purpose of a juror and juries...

Reference: https://www.americanjuryinstitute.org/

Dubhdara.

Peers Your Jury A

That's great information, dubhdara, thanks so much for sharing it -- that's basically where I was heading. How fortuitous for me that you're currently researching it!

Roz

A Jury Of Your Peers

Your post was quite informative Dubhara, but in the US, it is my understanding that jurors are told they must base their decision on the law, not on whether or not they think the law if fair. I have never been impaneled, but I have spoken to people who have and that is what they have told me. So, it isn't first hand information, but if it is true, then it would appear that the reality is a bit different than the ideology?

A Jury Your Peers

Well, you know there's nothing like researching something for yourself so I wouldn't want to deprive you...

Seriously, independent research is a real eye-opener and mind expander. It's not something society encourages in school, university or media.

I've often felt that the important subjects of the world are every bit as removed from their sound foundations as (what passes for) religion. I must say my studies have only reinforced that view.

Understanding the jury is perhaps one of our greatest political duties.

Dubhdara.

A Jury Your Peers Politics Business Civil & History

In the US, this is a particularly difficult question. In order to remain on a jury, in many cases, you must prove that you know nothing about the law. One of the first questions that is typically asked of prospective jurours: Have you had any legal education? If yes...most likely you are out. You also must prove that you are totally uninformed about the situation. I find this particularly bothersome in high profile trials. If a person has not heard of or read about a high profile crime before it goes to trial, I am seriously concerned about what this person exactly knows.

For instance, Kobe Bryant's case. While it is OK that the thing was settled out of court, you mean to tell me you can actually find people that have heard no information that may possibily sway them? If that were the case, then all the media coverage would have to be totally non-biased and both sides would have to be equally and as convincingly communicated. This just doesnt happen.

If you could find people that have just turned themselves off to current events and information on things around them, I am not sure I would want them judging me anyway.

Just a thought,

Vincenzo