Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Do you think the jury system works well?

I've heard people argue against the jury system saying it's better left to the Judge who, after all, is an expert in law. There have definitely been some 'funny' verdicts passed by juries.

On the other paw, what about applying the Jury system to politics? Should a random group of citizens be allowed to question the President once a month, for example? Wouldn't that yield interesting results?

Update:

@genegee - Yes, it has the ability to turn into a competition to see who has the best rhetorical skills. When addressing a Judge, a lawyer speaks differently than when addressing a jury.

Update 2:

@CS - Of course it's interesting that Plato used Socrates' ideas to critique Democracy. Would you agree with him on that?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Sara
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I once sat in a jury that was hearing a case where a man had ordered a group of strangers off his land out in the country with a shotgun, only later to find out they were undercover detectives. The men hadn't identified themselves and were dressed in raggedy clothes like bums. They had no warrant, and were just nosing around.

    So they accused this farmer of threatening the police.

    We retired to decide the case, and ten people said that "whatever the police say, we should go along with them and convict this guy."

    We "hung" that jury because neither I nor the lady beside me felt that the man should have no rights to protect his family from a group of sleazy-looking strangers who were skulking around his house.

    After that, I was pretty sure that juries are comprised of at least ten idiots who just want to hurry up and get home, and will agree to anything the majority says.

  • 8 years ago

    Your question is actually really thought provoking.

    Here are my thoughts.

    Citizens serve the primary purpose of deciding moral issues.

    Judges to interpret the rules of law, and to apply the penalties as they think are appropriate.

    Where we have run into problems is two areas.

    One, The legislature has decided that they should mandate the length of time for sentences, in politically advantages ways. This has lead to great unevenness in sentencing.under current interpretation to determine new laws, or fail to enforce laws via jury nullification.

    Two, the other is that juries are told that they are not permitted to use nullification.

    An example of this is drug laws, most people have done drugs, and have reservations about sending first time offenders to prison, however, mandatory minimums as they are written would require that.

    Just some thoughts. if you remove the Jury from criminal procedures then you remove the human element. In the event of contract disputes, judges should be the deciding official, since the issues are often complex and beyond the scope of knowledge of the average jury.

    Source(s): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jury%20n... Jury Nullification : the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact
  • 8 years ago

    No. It's awful. It's just that it's way better than every other system that it's even possible to imagine.

    No individual official should ever hold anyone's fate in their hands. Period. Neither should any law enforcement professional, neither cop nor lawyer.

    Even random people off the street, which, I will note the U.S. jury system, anyway, doesn't use, is better than any individual judge or organized professional review committee.

    Besides the inherently democratic aspects, and the "wrench in the gears of an unjust system" of jury nullification, even when no one is up to anything deliberately wrong, judgment MUST be made by someone OUTSIDE the legal system.

    It's worth the occasional wrong decision to enforce the civil equivalent of civilian supremacy over the military.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    The jury system is the best semblance of justice we have. With that said, I see the theatrics lawyers employ to sway jurors, trick them. I still think people get about as much justice as they can buy. He who has the best lawyer wins. As for questioning the president? He is probably the best one of all in the theatrics department.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • I think of what George Carlin said - it went something like this: "imagine the average person and how ******* dumb they are, now realize that they're twice as dumb as that".

    You want 12 random idiots choosing your fate? I am against the jury system. I think it becomes more about appealing to emotions of the plebs on the street. Who would risk that.

  • 8 years ago

    No because the lawyers used and abused the system. Plus it is unfair for the jurors who are in business like l was. It was coasting me money for my workers and hear l am sitting making a big $15.00 per day and the attorneys in the court are making several hundred dollars per hours. It is a great deal if a person is getting paid by there boss when o jury duty.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes

  • 8 years ago

    Our Canadian system is not working well.....but I really don't think that it's the juries that are the problem.

  • 8 years ago

    Nope. Justice is blind. But money also weighs on the scale.

  • 8 years ago

    don't challenge the system. you can spend your money a better way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLQRh1Pizfc

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.