What do you think about the idea of having "professional" jurors?

[NNN0LHI]

Have people who do it for a living and get a fair wage. I have not done any research on this subject but I am positive there are many pros and cons to the idea. One thing I do know though every time I ever sat on a jury, most of my fellow jurors were pissed off to even be there and pretty much all of them started out from get go with the presumption that the guy or gal who was on trial wouldn't be there if they weren't guilty.

What do you think?

Don

[MNDemNY]

1. Paid by the state???

You know that the "State" is a party to trials, right?

[NNN0LHI]

23. State pays for many of the lawyers representing the defendants

Does that sound right to you?

Don

[Taverner]

2. I see problems - imagine a group like the Heritage Foundation having their own juror company

[SoCalNative]

3. Anything that would get me out of jury duty

I'm all for ;)

[WeDidIt]

4. Hugely abysmal idea

That would be so rife with corruption and injustice this nation would end up doomed forever.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. It would be like having professional elected officials.

A contradiction in terms and purposes.

[Boojatta]

11. Are you being coy?

Imagine a juror election campaign. If elected, you could serve a term of four years. You might not be re-elected enough to become a highly experienced professional, but you would at any time have temporary paid employment as a juror till the end of your term.

[paulsby]

28. horrible idea in my opinion

the juror system is supposed to be based on a jury of one's peers.

not elected politicians.

[Boojatta]

58. What about the jury for a politician who has been accused of a crime?

Those can be very important crimes. For example, the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is often considered to have been a significant crime, or at least the straw that broke the back of the appeasement camel.

[paulsby]

62. i'm not really quaified to answer that

my knowledge of international law is THIN

[Lyric]

21. You mean like we already do?

Sadly. *sigh*

[Barack_America]

6. Meh. I hate jury duty, but it's my civic duty and I'll do it.

I was supposed to serve yesterday, as a matter of fact.

I called in the night before, as I was instructed to do and was told they no longer needed my services.

Felt like I hit the freaking jackpot.

[slackmaster]

7. Unconstitutional

You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers, not a jury of professional jurors.

[joeybee12]

26. Believe it or not, I agree with you...

...that clause couldn't be more straightforward.

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Would it really be a Jury of ones Peers?

After a Juror had sat thru their first 50 or more trials. It might be more like having a jury of judges.

[SoCalNative]

12. There's really no such thing

Was the jury in the OJ Simpson trial composed of former football players turned actors with lots of money?

That would be HIS peers, and I doubt any one of them was on the jury.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. It doesn't mean 'exactly the same as you'.

It means 'regular citizens'.

[MajorChode]

39. Exactly. The term goes back to English common law

In today's parlance, it really means a representative cross section of the community or as you say, 'regular citizens'.

[lurky]

9. Who decides who can be a juror?

My guess is that the Federalist Society would do everything it could to pack the juries with right wing activists.

In a way, I think what you are suggesting is that we have panels of judges (professional jurors) who determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. This is what they have in some of the European countries that don't do jury trials. It seems to work reasonably well.

[GodlessBiker]

10. They would become jaded and be subject to financial pressure to convict.

And it would require a huge constitutional change.

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. Privatized juries.

Hey, your jury is by Blackwater! Feel the justice!

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Gee that would be a terrible idea.

How about jurors are fully compensated for their time? That way 'pissed' is not a factor.

The concept of a jury of your peers is negated by a professional juror.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Nice idea, but what is 'fully compensated'?

If I make 29k/yr, and a fellow juror makes 49k, what is 'fully compensated' for me would be a big cut for him. OTOH, if I am compensated at a level that fully compensates him, it's party time for me. If we are each compensated at our own income levels, how do you justify paying us vastly differently for the same work? And, what about retirees? They lose no income by serving - so do they serve without compensation?

I've never served, but I'm just guessing that the 'pissed' factor does not stem so much from loss of income than from disruption of the juror's lives. People aren't used to being drafted and told they MUST do this or that. Of course, most people don't take citizenship terribly seriously, either. They're all for all the bennies, but the few responsibilities like voting and jury duty are SUCH a pain in the ass.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Fully compensated means you get paid whatever you get paid at work.

It means it does not cost you money to be a juror. There could be minimum and maximum compensation. Most states have a per diem rate that appears to have been set based on wages circa 1900, and you the juror are at the mercy of your employer to make up the difference (and to not punish you for being selected, even though laws forbid such practices.) Compensation for state trials varies by state. The federal compensation is ridiculous:


Federal jurors are paid $40 a day. While the majority of jury trials last less than a week, jurors can receive up to $50 a day after serving 30 days on a trial. (Employees of the federal government are paid their regular salary in lieu of this fee.) Jurors also are reimbursed for reasonable transportation expenses and parking fees. Jurors also receive a subsistence allowance covering their meals and lodging if they are required to stay overnight.

Your employer may continue your salary during all or part of your jury service, but is not required to do so. Nonetheless, the Jury Act forbids any employer from firing, intimidating, or coercing any permanent employee because of their federal jury service. You should check whether your company or employer has a policy for employees serving on jury duty.


Start with compensation reform. COLA any minimum/maximum rates. I suggest requiring employers to continue salaries as a way to deal with your problem with my rate is different than your rate.

[MurrayDelph]

43. Being fully compensated would be a good start

but if being a juror is as important as they claim it is, they should stop treating jurors like meat.

My current job is with a large corporation that will pay for all missed days, but my previous job did not.

It pissed me off to no end that a bunch of paid lawyers and bureaucrats were getting paid while I was expected to be treated as slave labor ($15/days + 30¢/mile --one way) IF they choose to make you come in (but you have to be on the hook for that time anyway, just in case). You were expected to use your vacation time (if you had it), or just "volunteer" (if you didn't). And if you claim you can't afford to volunteer, they expect you to provide your pay statements to prove it.


Add to that, when they DO require you to go in, they can send you to any court within their definition of a legitimate distance,which in the Los Angeles area can be both wide and stupid. Some of the people, have had to take multiple buses to get to a court in Burbank, only to find out that the actual courthouse is in Glendale (or vice versa), but they were called to first courthouse because the other one does not have clerks.

And if you make it into a juror's box, it seems like the only excuse they will accept is non-refundable airline tickets (I take driving vacations, often to attend events scheduled long in advanced. "Why, yes, your honor, I am willing to start my vacation a week later, if you can get all of the other members of Comic-Con to agree")

I was lucky-enough the last time I was on the hook to not have to actually show up to a courthouse in Hollywood where the parking lot (despite their claim) was two blocks away, and had no convenient handicapped parking.

If I could reform the selection process, it would require

1. At the beginning of each year, all potential jurors would have to select which courts they could get to, and which weeks they
would be available to serve. If it turns out they don't need you for those times and places, you've fulfilled your obligation.

2. When you arrive, you would have the option of providing your pay stubs, NOT so some clerk can tell you can afford a
non-paid week off, but so that they can properly compensate your time based on the correct amount of lost income.

3. Provide a comfortable waiting area (with coffee, tea, and Internet access provided. It pisses me off no end that it costs me
more than their token payment just to sit there).

4. Courts starting on time (When we are told to be back by a particular time, but have to wait standing in the halls it is
just rude).

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Like, if you're the CEO of a health insurance company,

we're gonna pay you $57,000/hour to sit on a jury?

[Warren Stupidity]

47. no - set COLA min/max or require employer comp -

either way. The point is that getting $40/day is part one of why jury duty is awful. Fix that.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. $40? You get $40? I think we get $5 a day.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. I cited the federal law. States are generally far worse.

Either way, 40 or 5, it is a burden on most working people, the consequence of which is that jury composition is skewed away from head of household with family workers, and/or composed of people pissed off to start with.

A representative cross section is not 10 retired people and two pissed off workers.

[Trillo]

56. "costs me more than their token payment just to sit there"

The last few times I was called for jury duty there was no payment, except perhaps as you say, token, to pay for traveling expenses or bus fee. I believe there was to be some kind of small payment (larger than token) IF and when a juror is selected to sit on a jury.

I honestly don't mind being called "to sit on a jury", as that occupies the mind in a useful and usually interesting and certainly new way. I detest being called to twiddle thumbs in a waiting room, merely to sit around until told after 4 hours or more, go home, we don't need you after all.

In my experience, this is a preponderant or repeating pattern, it's happened the last 3 or 4 times I've been called. I've wondered if it's a form of government harassment, to call up for duty, but then to fail to select. I'm not saying that the judges are intentionally doing this, rather the system's process is doing this.

Arguments that scheduling difficulties experienced by the court and individual judges that cause courts to call up excess jurors are probably less-and-less likely the truth with each successive call up that fails to result in assignment to a in-house jury selection (that itself might later result in assignment to a court case), and simultaneously increase the apparent probability that the selection process, after a notice to appear for duty is received and the juror shows up, is biased.

Jurors called up for possible duty have to go through security to enter the courthouse. The last several times I was called, a sign allowed some others to bypass security (I don't remember the sign's precise exceptions). Seems like a targeted type of harassment, though of a different nature from failure to select for a case, since everyone isn't subject to the security.

There was a time when everyone had to go through security. Then, at least, everyone is inconvenienced equally.

[bigwillq]

15. No

They will become manipulated by the system...it will turn out to be ruled by corporate hacks. Not a good idea, imo.

[HamdenRice]

17. It can work. Other countries have systems like this.

I just don't think it's suited to our legal culture. But it is a fairly common system around the world. Our way, is not the only fair and effective way.

I think in some countries they are called "assesors." They are employed non-lawyers, non-judges who sit on cases with judges and determine outcomes.

Our system comes very close to this as it is with complex litigation. The judge appoints a "special master", a paid expert, not always a lawyer and almost never a judge, to narrow down most of the technical issues.

Iirc, the early jury system in New England was much like the system you describe. Jurors were not randomly chosen individuals who were supposed to have no knowledge of the case; they were a fairly stable, semi-permanent group of local prominent people who knew all the gossip and intrigue in the village, including the facts of the case, and helped the judge come to a decision.

In much of traditional rural southern-western Africa, which has had a ridiculously legalistic culture for centuries, the judge is also the local traditional leader or "chief" and he is assisted in coming to decisions by a permanent group of advisors called his councilors (in English) or Bannakgotla (in Sotho and Tswana -- literally "men who sit in court").

[NNN0LHI]

25. I can tell you have researched this idea

Thank you for the information.

Don

[onenote]

51. I'm curious as to which countries have "professional" jurors

Link please?

Thanks

[HamdenRice]

60. To clarify, I didn't say countries have "professional jurors"

I said that a system such as was proposed in the OP of "professional jurors" could work because some countries have a system like that. I then summarized a few systems in which lay persons who are not randomly selected for one time cases, participate in judging cases.

In fact, our system of randomly selected, one-shot juries, is not particularly common except in countries colonized by England or that adopted English law at some point. Most countries have trials by judges alone and many have trials by judges assisted by lay persons (by lay person, I just mean, "non-lawyer").

The system of "lay assessors" (sometimes also called "lay judges") is quite common around the world. They are supposed to represent the citizens and society just like our juries, but they often are not randomly selected nor selected anew for each case. Sweden for example elects lay assessors for four years to serve alongside judges. China has appointed thousands of lay assessors for terms of 5 years as they continue to reform their judicial system. You can google "lay assessor" for examples. Here is an article from the Economist that discusses the spread of both juries and lay assessors and a blog post by some exchange students who recently watched a Swiss trial and describes their lay assessor system:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13109647

http://gsesweden2009.blogspot.com/2009/03/observations-on-swedish-legal-system.html

[Lyric]

18. People who would choose such a profession would be the ones least suited for it.

Who would choose to be a professional juror? Most likely, someone with an agenda, and there are plenty of those on both sides of the political spectrum. Now, consider that attorneys often use the pre-trial jury selection phase to get rid of people like that. They ask questions about how the jurors feel on all sorts of issues--the death penalty, three-strikes laws, mandatory sentences, racial bias in the criminal justice system, whether or not "revenge" is a good enough reason to kill, etc. If people answer in a way that reveals an ulterior motive or bias, then they are usually stricken from the jury pool by one side or the other. The reason for this is that neither side wants the other to have too much of a jury advantage, and for good reason. The fairest trials are the ones in which the jury has the least possible bias--toward *either* side.

Using professional jurors, in addition to be blatantly unconstitutional, would also lead to expensive legal headaches as sentences are overturned upon appeal because of suspected jury impropriety. That doesn't happen much now, because juries are random sets of ordinary people, but it would happen a LOT more often if we had people whose very careers depended upon being a "good" juror. In America, sad as it may be, a juror with a high conviction record would be more likely to be considered "good" than one with a high acquittal record. We are a vengeful people at heart, and in the court of public opinion, we tend to assume "guilty until proven innocent" rather than vice-versa. Even if the state didn't pay the jurors out of public funds, do you think the state would be more likely to hire a "jury company" with a high conviction rate, or a high acquittal rate? The State is out to convict, period--factual guilt or innocence are not the priority of the state.

I cannot imagine a worse idea for liberty and due process than a "professional" jury.

[Echo In Light]

19. Bad idea

[sinkingfeeling]

20. Awful idea. I'm really tired of people who 'would do anything to get out of jury duty'. They rank

right along side those who are 'too busy to vote' or who think they're too good to pay taxes for what the various governments provide.

As a citizen, each of us have responsibilities.
The most important is to keep informed about what is done in our names.
Pay your taxes and at today's rates as compared to a few decades ago, it's a pittance.
Vote in all elections.
Serve on a jury if selected.

[pipi_k]

29. There are some people I just would not WANT on a jury if I were before one

One of those people is me.

I've had panic disorder and agoraphobia for more years than many people here have been alive, and irritable bladder and bowels.

Some days I can't even sit in my own living room without freaking out, or, at the very least, peeing or shitting myself.


Anyone in his or her right mind would not want someone who is sitting there worrying about puking, fainting, crying, peeing themselves, or in some other way embarrassing themselves in public...to decide his or her fate. I certainly wouldn't.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. And someone like you can be dismissed very easily.

[pipi_k]

59. Oh, I have been. But the big problem is

that they keep sending the damned things, thinking that someone who has had panic and agoraphobia for over 40 years is suddenly going to be cured of it the next year. Starting in 2005, I received a summons each year for three years in a row.

I have a friend who has the same problem. Each time she has her doctor write her a note, and she gets disqualified.

But the time in between getting the summons and receiving the disqualification notice, she, like myself, suffers from the torments of hell, imagining that every horrible thing that could possibly happen WILL happen...including the jury commissioner NOT excepting the doctor's note and then being arrested in one's own home and dragged off to jail.


Many disabled people want to be able to participate in normal daily activities. People with panic disorder and agoraphobia...we just want to be left alone to mind our own business.

anyway, I guess they are smart enough to realize that there are some people who are totally unsuited for being on a jury...I just wish they'd be smart enough to know that people are very seldom "cured" of some things.

[JimWis]

34. I agree sinkingfeeling. Your reply said it better than I could have,

so I will just tack onto your reply - I couldn't agree more.

[timtom]

The one thing I took away from "Stranger in a Strange Land"

(beside "grokking"}, was "Fair Witnesses."

It was almost a priestly class of objective people whose testimony was inviolable because they were so objective.

Doable today?

Nah.

[Wizard777]

22. 100% against it . The jury is the only place We The People have a direct impact on the legal system.

Here in Maryland jury nullification is a Constitutional right. Our juries are judges of fact and law. So I would hate to see that power go to what would inevitably be a for profit entity. You would also have to change many State and the US Constitutions.

[harun]

31. Hell to the NO.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Thoroughly and obviously idiotic.

[Joanne98]

33. Bad idea.

[Orsino]

35. We would have a class of people whose positions were protected by law...

...and easy targets for bribery. Not unlike Congress.

No, I think we must stick to the semi-random selection already in use.

[dajoki]

36. That's ridiculous n/t

[Thickasabrick]

37. That would be worse than having congress critters. We've seen

how well they do.

[jeffbr]

38. And don't forget professional bettors and corporate sponsors - money can be made...

[anonymous171]

40. No. I am against professionalizing civic duties. nt

[MajorChode]

41. That would defeat the whole purpose of the jury system

You could just as well have the judge decide all cases, but again that defeats the purpose.

The beauty of the jury system is its ability to transcend the letter of the law through the reflection of the will of the people.

[Gman2]

42. Great, and the only people isolated wnough to be fair and balanced, are teabaggers.

[robdogbucky]

44. Bad idea

I have sat through dozens of jury trials and polled most of those jurors. It was part of my job and a very interesting process to be part of.

Yes, there is a minority that will not, can not, do not, even entertain the idea of performing their jury duty. Funny thing, many times when they were "forced," to do it, they ended up fascinated and liking it. They oftentimes do a very good job. More often than not actually which is why I decided to chime in on this thread. Yes, it is inconvenient, but many important things are inconvenient.

I have been wholly impressed with jurors' commitment to the process and once they get into a case, you could not drag them away. That is the majority of folks I have seen/heard polled. They really want to be fair, they want to do their duty and they end up realizing this is what keeps our system strong. They are always smarter than you think. Yes, there are the few nuts that have to do it and hate it, and they are sometimes intractable, but they are normally far out-numbered by those that are interested and responsible in discharging this duty. If the attorneys are good at their job, the decision is not difficult to make based on the judge's instructions after evidence is in and closing arguments are made.

I am always surprised at how natively intelligent common folks are. We have good people in this country and to waste that most precious resource by not using them on a random basis as is normally the case with the juries selected from voting or motor vehicle rolls would be a travesty in my mind. We need to have this random-ness, this open-mindedness, this cross-section, this non-involvement with the system. Of course if one does not vote or drive, that kind of eliminates them, but that is the minority I think.

One thing that has always bothered me was the jaded and old boy network of the court professionals that are there every day. In criminal actions especially, the defendant (remember they are supposed to be presumed innocent, etc.) is always outnumbered by the staff in the courtroom that all know each other, have seen thousands of defendants and end up jaded and insular. The deck is stacked in that respect by professional judges, clerks, bailiffs, DAs and PDs. This poor schmuck defendant thinks he will get his day in court, but unless there is an impartial jury, competent counsel, etc., then he can hardly be seen to be getting a fair trial when I suspect most of those courtroom professionals think they have seen it all and I suspect have already pre-judged them based on charges. The jury is the only element in that court that does not come in having a natural bias. At least the presumed innocent defendant has a half a chance with jurors. Not so much I think with their own PD, the DA, the judge, the bailiff/marshall, etc. They just get too jaded, as I fear any professional jury would get.

What I would entertain is court-designated professional expert witnesses with no skin in the game, so to speak. This is also open to the same debate as the jury issue, but I have seen too many good experts and too many bad experts. Their impact on a given case is very powerful. Their selection and use would be more even-handed if they were selected from ranks of professional expertise in some fashion. Otherwise, the party with the most lucre can afford to hire the most effective, time-tested expert to influence the jury. Hiring a competent attorney is also important and largely based on one's ability to pay for the best, but we should limit this ability to gain an edge to just that. It is too easy for the professional expert to lie or distort the data and evidence in such a way that they get away with it. Remember their job is to serve the client/attorney that hired them and truth or the facts are subject to interpretation at that level. This is tradecraft and not necessarily an honest assessment of the facts.

Nonetheless, this ability to have such hired expertise (if one can afford it) can make all the difference to the impartial jury. The name of the game is perception and skill in presenting one particular version of the facts. This process of having good and bad experts based on ability to hire the best, etc., is too unfair to leave that element of any case to those that have the most money to hire the best experts to influence the jury. This should be a real fact finding mission, not performance art. That is one flaw that is/will be hard to overcome in any attempt at reforms to make the system more foolproof.

Experts are notorious whores and I am reminded of auto accident/injury/products liability cases in this regard. Only if there is any possibility of big verdict, can any victim hire the best experts to present what happened in a light that will not be completely annihilated by the professionals the auto manufacturers have in their stable. I have seen this process up close and personal and it is not pretty if these professional whores don't think you have any wedge to use in proving negligence on the manufacturers' part. Facts be damned, the companies can afford to throw up all this testing and data and if the plaintiff does not have equally reliable experts that are equally diligent and competent in their analyses, they do not get an honest chance at a just award in my opinion. The professional ambulance chaser plaintiffs' lawyers have stables of such experts that examine warehouses full of autos that were involved in injury accidents and make their desicions to participate based solely on the actuarial chance that they can point out some defect to impugn the manufacturer and their individual record of success/failure against that particular manufacturer. Many deserving plaintiffs do not get such a representative because they do not have a canned, tried and true set of defects they can prove and rely upon. The stage is often set, and cases are taken forward, based only on the history of the professionals involved, not an honest, impartial presentation of the facts.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[varelse]

45. That would require amending the US Constitution

On the other hand, legislature ensuring that jurors be granted adequate compensation by their employers while serving could be very helpful. Many people really cannot afford to miss work to serve on a jury.

[Posteritatis]

49. Ugh, that's even worse than elected judges. (nt)

[EFerrari]

50. Like the Fair Witnesses in Childhood's End?

:)

[onenote]

52. what would be the basic qualfications for being a "professional" juror

would you have to have some expertise in the law? be a lawyer? would being a lawyer disqualify you? who would do the hiring and how would they decide who gets hired?

[ieoeja]

54. We have that. We call them "judges".

The defendant can always opt for a bench trial if you don't trust your peers.

[Odin2005]

55. My recent experiences with how moronic jurors can be makes me like this idea.

[Vidar]

57. Great basis for a massive increase in corruption.

[HamdenRice]

61. There's something sad and cynical and insular about this thread

Everyone is absolutely certain that such a system could never work and would be taken over by various crony capitalist factions or corrupt political hacks because it involves pay. Yet dedicated public defenders go to court every day to represent the poor and the accused and they are paid.

Our cynicism knows no bounds after 8 years of Bush.

The other surprising thing about this thread is how insular it is. As I noted upthread, something like permanent jurors is a system that many liberal European countries have adopted.

There is a very, very wide variety of forms of citizen participation in trials, and our jury system is only one of them.

That said, our system is both legally and culturally entrenched here and semi permanent jurors wouldn't work here, but I'm amazed at the categorical denial represented in this thread that it could work anywhere, even though it does.