Do you think the court system and trial by jury needs to be revamped?

Question

Currently, trial by jury means that a person on trial is judged by his/her peers. However, the people don't truly know the particular person's mannerism from such a short period of interaction. Why do you think it is that jurors make decisions based on personal expressions made by the person on trial? Is that what the goal is from the first place? If so, have the people on the juror panel been properly trained to interpret facial and body expressions? Is it really more practical for the jury to make a decision based on physical appearance rather than evaluating the facts in written form? Do you think that the reason why a jury doesn't perform its evaluation by written facts is because the process of sorting through the facts is similar to word problem and critical thinking skills that many average people lack? If so, why would anyone want those people to be deciding on the fate of their judgment? I believe that trial by jury should separate the person on trial from the facts revolving around the case being examined. Why isn't such a system encouraged(facts including prior records either innocent or guilty)?

Answer 1

It seems to me you do not have a firm comfortable grip on the difference between material facts of time, place and identity of the physical person as different from the identity of the personality. When motive is not identified but time, place, ability and exclusion of other persons as suspect for a crime are established, then the personality question is next, e.g. what peculiarities could a person have to create an abnormal motive?. It is then prior acts of the person are brought in to establish a theoretical peculiarity for the suspects personality description to explain the motive, e.g. recidivism.



If you are too short to have committed the crime, that is a physical attribute excluding you from suspicion. The possibility the person compensated for their limitation for the specific act is circumstantial and needs material evidence for its proof. Identification of an individuals physical attributes is not mere prejudice, it is material evidence.



We are not debating your opinion.

Answer 2

> Currently, trial by jury means that a person on trial is judged by his/her peers.



Uh, no it doesn't. You watch too much tv and don't read enough books on the topic you are asking about.



> Why do you think it is that jurors make decisions based on personal expressions made by the person on trial?



Because they are instructed to make their decision solely on the basis of the evidence in the courtroom, and not on anything else they may have heard or seen about the case.



> Is that what the goal is from the first place?



Of course.



> If so, have the people on the juror panel been properly trained to interpret facial and body expressions?



No training is necessary. Voir dire takes care of it.



> Is it really more practical for the jury to make a decision based on physical appearance rather than evaluating the facts in written form?



Jurors are instructed to consider all of the evidence before them, nothing more and nothing less.



> Do you think that the reason why a jury doesn't perform its evaluation by written facts is because the process of sorting through the facts is similar to word problem and critical thinking skills that many average people lack?



No, that is nonsense. the system has been this way since the days of the Magna Carta. Evidence comes in many forms, written an otherwise. Not all "otherwise" evidence can be reduced to writing, and of those that can be, not all of it is universally objective.



Which is why we have an adversarial system. If the defendant presents evidence that harms the case, his or her attorney has an ethical obligation to present that side of the case in the best light he or she can.



> If so, why would anyone want those people to be deciding on the fate of their judgment?



You have a better solution?



In any case,m "ate" is not decided. There are always appeals available if there is an error of law, or for other reasons if the trila was not fairly decided.



> I believe that trial by jury should separate the person on trial from the facts revolving around the case being examined.



I don't even know what that means? The person should not be allowed to be at his or her trial so the jury can't see him or her?



> Why isn't such a system encouraged(facts including prior records either innocent or guilty)?



It is encouraged already. Evidence relevant to the charged crime is presented, and nothing else, in order to avoid prejudicing the jury. The adversary system allows trained advocates to persuade as needed, to have a say in who the jurors are, to offer evidence, to cross examine, and to speak to the jury directly in order to persuade, and to appeal.



What more do you want exactly?

Answer 3

I believe the entire legal system, from the arrest right through to the prison term, is the biggest failure of our understanding of cause and effect. It is based on the reptilian concept of vengence, and is why the government's "war on crime" is predestined not only to fail, but actually increase the incidence frequency and magnitude of offences committed.

For a long time now, a rapidly growing minority group has been trying to portray this irrefutable fact, and have devised a plan to slowly but certainly change the entire legal structure, and is supported by virtually every living person consulted on the issue, particularly those in the legal industry, however it is very hotly opposed by companies and corporations that owe their existence to this flawed system, and because the average corporation is by definition pathologically driven to the persuit of profit and power these artificial people pose a significant threat to the magnificent plans we've set in place.

The plan involves all the people associated with any given incident to promote healing of body, mind and soul, to come to an agreement that serves everyone. I know that right now that seems fundamentally impossible in many cases, but it's not. I can't explain exactly why it's not impossible without a great deal of foundational explanation, but I've personally seen cases where it was believed by everyone that atleast one party involved would be forced to compromise, but in the end there were no comprimising and everyone left winners.

Answer 4

I do get where you are coming from. Thing is though, here, the jury aren`t allowed to know about someones past and yes they may well make judgements on appearances, which is unhelpful. Based on the evidence and how it is presented is what they have to consider. The judgement though is left up to the judge. It is here that I feel the system is lacking. So much inconsistency with regard to justice, how can two people be found guilty of the same crime and both recieve differing sentences?

Answer 5

I think the short comings of our system is made by the ability to retain a lawyer. It seems to me that it is possible to buy your way out of the system. The more money you have the more access you have to quality representation. On top of the facts you have stated I plan to keep my nose clean.