Show of HandsShow of Hands

droo February 8th, 2014 5:52am

Some people object to the current randomized jury-selection process because oftentimes defendants are not adequately represented by their demographics. Should we revise the selection process to fulfill a certain quota on gender, ethnicity, age, etc.?

11 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

opie99 left coast best coast
02/09/14 11:08 am

I just wanna get called for jury duty. Hasn't happened yet.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
02/08/14 6:20 am

sigh... revised, yes, but not how we do the quota thing now. i think it sucks that we still need to be demographically rep and can't rep others based on our humanity vs the other criteria.

beanD California
02/08/14 12:40 am

Way too much room for corruption.

Wert A picture of my junk
02/07/14 11:54 pm

Juries are not selected at random. The jury pool is. The jurors that make it to cases are carefully selected by the attorneys on either side. There is nothing random about jury selection.

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
02/08/14 12:00 am

I meant mostly the jury pool, but even so, revise the question to "should the attorneys have to meet a quota"? I know they can reject people they think have bias.

Wert A picture of my junk
02/08/14 12:03 am

I like the system as it is, now. Sure, some juries end up unbalanced. But, with both lawyers needing to agree on jurors, the intent is fair.

Wert A picture of my junk
02/08/14 12:03 am

It's better than having one person decide someone's fate.

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/08/14 12:23 am

Important point, wert. Lawyers weed out a lot of people, and people are often excused if they have certain kinds of jobs (ER doc, a lawyer they don't want injecting more opinion into the jury room, etc.) - so the jury itself isn't random, but it's

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/08/14 12:26 am

designed to be not-random in the fairest way possible.

For civil cases, though, honestly, I disagree that it's better than one person. Judges aren't perfect and there are some bad ones out there, but overall they're usually pretty fair.

MrWolfe Nashville
02/07/14 11:42 pm

So should a white male receive a predominantly white-male jury? I could see some potential benefit for ethnic minorities, but it seems a little too reminiscent of segregationist thinking for my tastes.

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
02/07/14 11:40 pm

Oh, for Heaven's sake! What utter claptrap!

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
02/07/14 11:41 pm

claptrap lol that just sounds wrong

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
02/07/14 11:52 pm

I didn't want to overuse balderdash, and piffle sounds way worse! How about horsefeathers? :o)

Praetorianus Fair enough.
02/07/14 11:56 pm

Bullhawkee and jimminee, I like hogwash ;)

Praetorianus Fair enough.
02/07/14 11:59 pm

And then there's tarnation and "confound it!" ;)))

Wert A picture of my junk
02/08/14 12:06 am

Drivel. Hokum. Poppycock.

Wert A picture of my junk
02/08/14 12:10 am

Caca del toro.

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
02/08/14 2:49 am

Wert, thou art an expert euphemizer! A worthy wielder of words! :o)

Praetorianus Fair enough.
02/07/14 10:55 pm

Drop it and leave it to the judge. A jury isn't professional, that's like getting a term paper graded by ten people haphazardly picked from a line at McDonald's.

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
02/07/14 11:01 pm

Yes, but so is encouraging the average American (who is a "political know-nothing") to go out and vote, but I'd say both that and having a jury are beneficial to democracy because they both make sure the people are truly ruling, not some bureaucracy.