The American Justice System is a Joke!

[BachQ]

Remember the O.J. trial? "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit"

In the USA, it's not about innocence or guilt; rather, it's about whether the prosecution met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the OJ case, the cumulative effect of the defense's arguments more than sufficiently raised the spectre of reasonable doubt (including the entire ill-fitting glove fiasco).

Is it a flawed system?  Absolutely.

Is there a better system?  I'm not aware of one.

Also, unless you're at the courtroom in person, to directly see, hear, feel, sense, and experience all of the testimony, including directly witnessing the expressions and reactions of witnesses as they are crossexamined, you cannot competently and faithfully reach a conclusion as to innocence/guilt.

[Keemun]

Me too. Who wants to be judged by some people randomly picked from the street? (OK the most unsuitable ones will be filtered out ). Just think of some people in your street! The shivers go through my spine just thinking about it.

I'm in the legal profession and know several judges, and I honestly would safely trust my fate in their hands if need be.

Q

Really, it's a catch-22.  I've seen judges here (and elsewhere) make some pretty bad rulings that are contrary to the law because of their personal biases.  At least in the U.S. jury system, there's an opportunity to reject some unfavorable jurors.  Of course, as you said (albeit in different words), there's the argument that jurors are a group of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty.   

[sound67]

I do.  Judges can be bought

Jurors can be bought more easily.

[DavidW]

In the USA, it's not about innocence or guilt; rather, it's about whether the prosecution met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the OJ case, the cumulative effect of the defense's arguments more than sufficiently raised the spectre of reasonable doubt (including the entire ill-fitting glove fiasco).

Is it a flawed system?  Absolutely.

Is there a better system?  I'm not aware of one.

Also, unless you're at the courtroom in person, to directly see, hear, feel, sense, and experience all of the testimony, including directly witnessing the expressions and reactions of witnesses as they are crossexamined, you cannot competently and faithfully reach a conclusion as to innocence/guilt.

I completely agree.  I'm surprised how many people think that they are experts on a trial after seeing a few minutes synopsis of the proceedings on cnn.   It's particularly easy to think you know what's going on when you've just been shown the same catchy pieces over and over, like if the glove doesn't fit...

[Keemun]

Jurors can be bought more easily.

It's not really about judges and juries being influenced by outside sources (e.g. being "bought").  That sort of thing doesn't happen that often (at least in the U.S.).  The more prevalent problem is the biases and prejudices of juries and judges.  When you are facing one judge and that judge happens to have an unfair bias against you, you're in trouble.  At least with a jury, if a juror is biased against you, there is still a good chance that most of the jurors are willing and able to be fair-minded and just.

[sound67]

Actually, the jurors in that trial didn't seem to have grasped more than a few minutes of that trial, even though they had been witnesses to it for months. How else culd you explain that verdict?

Admit it, the American justice system is a joke.

[DavidW]

Actually, the jurors in that trial didn't seem to have grasped more than a few minutes of that trial, even though they had been witnesses to it for months. How else culd you explain that verdict?

Admit it, the American justice system is a joke.

Well I don't know, I wasn't there.  I did not have access to all the information that the jury did.  What did you?  What makes you think that any of us would perceive you as having an informed opinion on that case?  You speak as if you are an authority on that matter when clearly you're not.

Edit: Oh yeah you but you don't judge an entire system by one trial anyway.  Take a class in statistics some time.

[DavidW]

That sort of thing doesn't happen that often (at least in the U.S.). 

Judge, lawyer etc <-- (go up the chain to the highest level) <-- political appointment <-- influenced by political leaders <-- influenced by lobbyists

They don't have to be directly coerced, in any place you feel a certain sense of obligation to your employer for hiring you.  Systems can be subtly but effectively rigged this way.  Yeah, yeah I'm paranoid, I know.

[BachQ]

Would you feel comfortable writing a review of an hour-long concert of which you were only able to view a 30 minute portion on DVD (rather than live)?

[longears]

No. But in most other countries people are tried and sentenced by professionals, not laymen from the street.

Just like in the U.S. (the lawyers who try the case and the judge who imposes sentence are all professionals).

I'll give you anothing thing to think about:

"judged by his peers"

Oh, yeah! Judged by bus drivers, taxi drivers, pimps, waitresses and so on.

Every intelligent male/female/transvestite is able to pull out of jury duty. Whenever has anyone in the American legal system be judged by his or her peers? I.e. unless he or she happens to be a bus driver, taxi driver, pimp, waitress etc.

I vividly remember the O.J. trial (I just couldn't stop watching, not only because it was surreal, but it unmasked the American legal system as a farce), one "substitute juror" on Larry King was a senile old bus driver.

Jurors are more likely to be government employees, since they not only get time off but get paid for jury duty.

The OJ trial demonstrated that the system works just as it's designed to and just as it works in nearly every jurisdiction: it protected the interests of the upper classes (to which OJ belonged by dint of wealth and celebrity status).  The prosecution was horribly botched.  Should have been a two day slam dunk.  But the real cause of the failure was in removing the trial to a venue where OJ couldn't have been convicted if he'd been caught on video signing autographs for witnesses after the slayings.  It will be interesting to see how the robbery case goes now that he's no longer rich and is infamous rather than famous.

You'd best quit while you're ahead.  With every post you're demonstrating how ignorance and prejudice reinforce one another.

[Mark]

Me too. Who wants to be judged by some people randomly picked from the street? (OK the most unsuitable ones will be filtered out ). Just think of some people in your street! The shivers go through my spine just thinking about it.

I'm in the legal profession and know several judges, and I honestly would safely trust my fate in their hands if need be.

Q

I've always thought trial by jury was a ridiculous idea. Leave it to the professionals, say I. When I'm stuck for a creative concept, do I random demand twelve people to convene and try to come up with something for me? Do I ****! So why should I - unqualified in matters legal - be told that I have to attend a trial to decide if someone shot their mother?

[DavidW]

I've always thought trial by jury was a ridiculous idea. Leave it to the professionals, say I. When I'm stuck for a creative concept, do I random demand twelve people to convene and try to come up with something for me? Do I ****! So why should I - unqualified in matters legal - be told that I have to attend a trial to decide if someone shot their mother?

Actually in that example you brought up, I fail to realize why you would be unqualified.  Maybe you would care to elaborate more Mark, because I don't understand you.

[BachQ]

So why should I - unqualified in matters legal - be told that I have to attend a trial to decide if someone shot their mother?

Juries are qualified in resolving questions of fact; judges are qualified in resolving questions of law.

do I random demand twelve people to convene and try to come up with something for me? Do I

Don't you advertising folks use "focus groups" comprised of ordinary citizens?

[sound67]

The OJ trial demonstrated that the system works just as it's designed to and just as it works in nearly every jurisdiction: it protected the interests of the upper classes (to which OJ belonged by dint of wealth and celebrity status).  The prosecution was horribly botched.  Should have been a two day slam dunk.  But the real cause of the failure was in removing the trial to a venue where OJ couldn't have been convicted if he'd been caught on video signing autographs for witnesses after the slayings.  It will be interesting to see how the robbery case goes now that he's no longer rich and is infamous rather than famous.

My point exactly. Had he been judged by his peers, i.e. the rich and famous, he'd never gotten away.

The system is deeply flawed. Amateurs beget amateurishness.

[Mark]

Actually in that example you brought up, I fail to realize why you would be unqualified.  Maybe you would care to elaborate more Mark, because I don't understand you.

David, I was indulging in some dry humour. I do, of course, appreciate why we have jurors for certain cases.

[Mark]

Don't you advertising folks use "focus groups" comprised of ordinary citizens?

Well, that's what we tell our clients ... and charge them for.

[Solitary Wanderer]

I've been called for jury duty three times but never been 'selected'. Got close last time.

I'm prepared to do it once but being self-employed its an inconveniant infringement of my time; some trials go on for days/weeks 

Personally I think professional juror's would be a good idea 

[longears]

I think jurors should be paid at least as well as lawyers.  Unpaid jury duty is a form of slavery.

[sound67]

I've been called for jury duty three times but never been 'selected'. Got close last time.

But only close. Whenever e.g. has a lawyer been judged by people of the legal profession?

[DavidW]

Whenever e.g. has a lawyer been judged by people of the legal profession?

When they're held in contempt.

When they have their law license revoked (like Jack Thompson).

When they are on trial.

Need I go on?