Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
because:
jury of one's peers
In all criminal cases – not necessarily all civil cases – the defendant has the constitutional right to have a juryof their peers at trial (note that “peers” often means citizens, See Citizen; also note that a blue ribbon jurywould violate this right). This right can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” See Impartial Jury. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of the particular case. Readily recognized biases include gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. To exclude potentially biased jurors, either party to the suit may use a peremptory challenge during the jury selection process.
Jury of one’s peers is somewhat similar to the expression “judgement of his peers” which simply means a jury trial and comes from the Magna Carta.
[Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]
jury of one's peers
^^^ THAT ^^^
I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
because:
jury of one's peers
In all criminal cases – not necessarily all civil cases – the defendant has the constitutional right to have a juryof their peers at trial (note that “peers” often means citizens, See Citizen; also note that a blue ribbon jurywould violate this right). This right can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” See Impartial Jury. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of the particular case. Readily recognized biases include gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. To exclude potentially biased jurors, either party to the suit may use a peremptory challenge during the jury selection process.
Jury of one’s peers is somewhat similar to the expression “judgement of his peers” which simply means a jury trial and comes from the Magna Carta.
[Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]
jury of one's peers
^^^ THAT ^^^
Why is it so important to you that people of average intelligence who have little to no understanding of the law and forensic science make ill informed decisions on the guilt or innocence of a person?
Most Americans have an IQ between 85 and 115.
Do you really want some barely functional borderline retard on your jury?
I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
because:
jury of one's peers
In all criminal cases – not necessarily all civil cases – the defendant has the constitutional right to have a juryof their peers at trial (note that “peers” often means citizens, See Citizen; also note that a blue ribbon jurywould violate this right). This right can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” See Impartial Jury. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of the particular case. Readily recognized biases include gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. To exclude potentially biased jurors, either party to the suit may use a peremptory challenge during the jury selection process.
Jury of one’s peers is somewhat similar to the expression “judgement of his peers” which simply means a jury trial and comes from the Magna Carta.
[Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]
jury of one's peers
^^^ THAT ^^^
Why is it so important to you that people of average intelligence who have little to no understanding of the law and forensic science make ill informed decisions on the guilt or innocence of a person?
Most Americans have an IQ between 85 and 115.
Do you really want some barely functional borderline retard on your jury?
what a drama queen you are. there is an elimination process that weeds out anyone unfit.
oh & uh …. the constitution <----- that.
that's why.
And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
THE reason why I was disappointed was the area I grew up in 39 people were lynched both black and white; so non whites could vote and serve on on a jury. I was hoping to see a good mix of citizens.So you make a post about responsibility but you're really making it about race. goodbye.Serving on jury duty is something I strongly belive in doing .Most citizens I have met do what ever they can to get out of it.Its how we citizens can have an impact along with. Voting. Do you go on jury duty when summoned? One thing that was dissapointing for me was when entering the jury room its just me and a large room of other white people.
And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
The intelligent people get out of it.And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
The intelligent people get out of it.And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
Having stupid people sitting on the bench and acting as prosecutor is a much bigger problem.And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
Not always. Some may even want to do it.The intelligent people get out of it.And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
Are you suggesting that a person of reasonable intelligence wants to be on a jury?Not always. Some may even want to do it.The intelligent people get out of it.And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
This is, IMO, a rather stupid generalization. A “jury of one’s peers,” a jury “representative of the public,” voir dire, challenges, all are legal concepts and tools that prosecutors, plaintiffs and defending attorneys all use in civil and criminal cases. While time consuming and expensive, they get rid of many who are unable or unwilling to even try to be unbiased.HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
because:
jury of one's peers
In all criminal cases – not necessarily all civil cases – the defendant has the constitutional right to have a juryof their peers at trial (note that “peers” often means citizens, See Citizen; also note that a blue ribbon jurywould violate this right). This right can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” See Impartial Jury. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of the particular case. Readily recognized biases include gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. To exclude potentially biased jurors, either party to the suit may use a peremptory challenge during the jury selection process.
Jury of one’s peers is somewhat similar to the expression “judgement of his peers” which simply means a jury trial and comes from the Magna Carta.
[Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]
jury of one's peers
^^^ THAT ^^^
Why is it so important to you that people of average intelligence who have little to no understanding of the law and forensic science make ill informed decisions on the guilt or innocence of a person?
Most Americans have an IQ between 85 and 115.
Do you really want some barely functional borderline retard on your jury?
what a drama queen you are. there is an elimination process that weeds out anyone unfit.
oh & uh …. the constitution <----- that.
that's why.
The lawyers want stupid people on the jury because stupid people are more easily manipulated.
Do you really think lawyers pick the smartest people in the room?
I don't know if you're naive or just dumb.
Serving on jury duty is something I strongly belive in doing .Most citizens I have met do what ever they can to get out of it.Its how we citizens can have an impact along with. Voting. Do you go on jury duty when summoned? One thing that was dissapointing for me was when entering the jury room its just me and a large room of other white people.
Having stupid people sitting on the bench and acting as prosecutor is a much bigger problem.And that is a problem. Maybe you should spend some time trying to fathom why we have laws in the first place, dummy.Fuck matters of the law, what really matters is what is right, what is wrong and what makes sense and that's exactly why juries make the most sense to me.Just what we need yet another bunch of professional parasites sucking the taxpayer tit and fucking up every damn thing they touch. I have one thing they don't, common fucking sense.I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
So you want the government to force you to work on a jury for who knows how long for a couple bucks an hour?
The average IQ of the public is 100 I sure as shit don't want these average idiots deciding matters of law
right and wrong don't mean anything in court.
HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
I never understood why we need to yank 12 random people out of their lives to serve on a jury anyway.
Why can't a judge decide if the evidence merits a guilty or not guilty verdict ?
Or maybe we should institute a professional juror system.
People with some knowledge of the law, the rights of the accused and the victims and at least some basic understanding of forensic science instead of a bunch of people who don't know anything about those things
because:
jury of one's peers
In all criminal cases – not necessarily all civil cases – the defendant has the constitutional right to have a juryof their peers at trial (note that “peers” often means citizens, See Citizen; also note that a blue ribbon jurywould violate this right). This right can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” See Impartial Jury. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of the particular case. Readily recognized biases include gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. To exclude potentially biased jurors, either party to the suit may use a peremptory challenge during the jury selection process.
Jury of one’s peers is somewhat similar to the expression “judgement of his peers” which simply means a jury trial and comes from the Magna Carta.
[Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]
jury of one's peers
^^^ THAT ^^^
Why is it so important to you that people of average intelligence who have little to no understanding of the law and forensic science make ill informed decisions on the guilt or innocence of a person?
Most Americans have an IQ between 85 and 115.
Do you really want some barely functional borderline retard on your jury?
what a drama queen you are. there is an elimination process that weeds out anyone unfit.
oh & uh …. the constitution <----- that.
that's why.
The lawyers want stupid people on the jury because stupid people are more easily manipulated.
Do you really think lawyers pick the smartest people in the room?
I don't know if you're naive or just dumb.
both the prosecute & defense filter out people... for many reasons.
why do you hate the constitution?
This is, IMO, a rather stupid generalization. A “jury of one’s peers,” a jury “representative of the public,” voir dire, challenges, all are legal concepts and tools that prosecutors, plaintiffs and defending attorneys all use in civil and criminal cases. While time consuming and expensive, they get rid of many who are unable or unwilling to even try to be unbiased.HAving stupid people on a jury is the problem
The problem isn’t stupid jurors (or “too well educated” jurors), liberal or conservative ones. Nothing guarantees perfect decisions, especially where money, corporations and expensive lawyers, or complex cases are involved. Judges are important as they guide by explaining the law. But the jury system has been not merely an important and rather unique foundation of the U.S. legal system, but an obstacle to government overreach.
I was never on a jury in NYC where most jurors did not take their role seriously once selected. Rich or not, highly educated or not, agreeing or not, I found the experience sometimes quite emotional, even draining, but it always re-affirmed my belief that jury duty was itself an education in civil government. Even when I disagreed with the majority opinion.
