Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsA Jury Of Your Peers - Page 2 of 2
I think it is interesting that a trial by - Page 2 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 28th Apr, 2008 - 2:42pm
Posts: 12 - Views: 3945
A Jury Of Your Peers - Page 2
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
In reality, this is not 100% accurate. It is what we often hear said, but, in fact, you must simply not have formed an opinion. In high profile cases, such as the Michael Jackson case of today, they are not looking for people who haven't heard of it, but simply people who haven't formed an opinion and can honestly be fair and impartial in judging the case. This is what I heard on the news just yesterday in regards to the selection of his jury...
International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 
32%
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 27th Apr, 2008 - 11:38am / Post ID: #
Peers Your Jury A
Name: Rick
Comments: I often have the point brought up in my law enforcement classes that we as citizens have the right to a jury of our peers. However, I cannot find this written into law anywhere and it appears to be more accepted practice than it is law. The seventh amendment does say that one has the right to a jury trial, but look again, it says nothing about peers. Law is sometimes set by precedent and I am guessing that this is what has happened over the years with this "peer" issue, but since I am not a lawyer and only a CJ professor I will admit that it may be out there somewhere and I jsut missed it.
A Jury Of Your Peers History & Civil Business Politics
You are most certainly correct. There is not a mentioning of peers with regards to juries in the Constitution.
| QUOTE |
| Jury of Peers People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing - in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers." |
This is one of the best ways I have seen it summed up.
Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, else the jury system would be unworkable.
Edited: Vincenzo on 28th Apr, 2008 - 11:04pmInternational Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Post Date: 28th Apr, 2008 - 2:42pm / Post ID: #
Page 2 Peers Your Jury A
I think it is interesting that a trial by jury is supposed to be a trial by your peers. I have seen people in the jury waiting areas to see if they will be picked for a trail. I am thinking they are getting some interesting people for a trial. I also find it interesting that the lawyers are the ones who pick the jury. The prosecuter is trying to get people on that will be on their side while the defense is doing the same. This usually gives you a pretty good cross section of people who are neither for or against the accused. While the instructions from the judge are specific the jury still has the power to go against the instructions if they feel the law is wrong. dubhdara is correct that the power of the jury is pretty strong and is a check on the governments power. If a jury will not find a person guilty because the people do not agree about the law that was passed the government can not enforce it and it will have to be stricken. I have never heard of this happening but someday it could.
TOPIC: A Jury Of Your Peers