schlimm Convicted One: Your examples are pretty humorous, but those and other factually challenged beliefs are unfortunately what many Americans (including some participants in these forums?) tend to adhere to. My point was simply that most juries are bound to be pretty representative of the overall population of the area served. So it is statistically improbable that the 6 or 12 or 24 (Grand juries) jurors selected will be largely "stupid" people, if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
Convicted One: Your examples are pretty humorous, but those and other factually challenged beliefs are unfortunately what many Americans (including some participants in these forums?) tend to adhere to. My point was simply that most juries are bound to be pretty representative of the overall population of the area served.
So it is statistically improbable that the 6 or 12 or 24 (Grand juries) jurors selected will be largely "stupid" people, if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
First paragraph: Unfortunately those many americans adhering to those "factually challenged" beliefs get called for jury service every day. That's why I selected them as examples, because they provide a ready example of what your ~middle of the bell curve~ normal IQ Americans are capable of.
Second paragraph: Earlier you complained because I pulled a couple examples from criminal cases while your center of focus preferred to rationalize civil cases only. Do you have any hard information that might prove that the jury selection process for civil trials is any more discriminating than it is for criminal trials? I think that they intentionally draw from the same source, but I could be wrong. ..info?
Further ..even sane, rational, intelligent people can do stupid things when they find themselves in a stress filled environment with which they are not accustomed to. Especially when confronted by experts who thrive in that environment every day.
schlimm if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
And let's not overlook intellectual laziness, where so many seem to prefer to have others do their thinking for them.
Think of the instances of wrongful death cases at RR Crossings where awardsare made despite the blame falling mostly upon a motorist breaking the law. DO you think that smart people make such determination?
schlimm The topic was RR's getting sued. Since that involves our judicial system, why would you think this thread is not on topic in discussing the jury system and its impact on lawsuits against RR's?
The topic was RR's getting sued. Since that involves our judicial system, why would you think this thread is not on topic in discussing the jury system and its impact on lawsuits against RR's?
This is far from my area of expertise, but I have been sitting back and enjoying this discussion. If someone wants to be all antsy and hit the "report" button because the posters are discussing something other than paint schemes, then let him. How that is of a grave concern to anyone else is beyond me....
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Could I suggest that the previous-but-one comment is indicative of a bit of anxiety over this thread....that and a message from a second (non-participatory) observer who has posted a Report of Abuse who also feels uneasy about the tenor of the thread on the past several pages.
Please, step back, collect some thoughts, and proceed cautiously with a view to toning down the rhetoric.
Thanks.
-Crandell
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The last time I checked this was a railroad forum not the Harvard Law Review. Lets quit acting like children and get back to the basic subject of trains.
Convicted One: Your examples are pretty humorous, but those and other factually challenged beliefs are unfortunately what many Americans (including some participants in these forums?) tend to adhere to. My point was simply that most juries are bound to be pretty representative of the overall population of the area served. So it is statistically improbable that the 6 or 12 or 24 (Grand juries) jurors selected will be largely "stupid" people, if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
schlimm My comments were that juries are a fairly representative sample of the population of the jurisdiction. Given that, they have people of the various levels of intelligence in a normal distribution. So clearly they are neither above nor below the influence of their emotions and/or stupidity.
My comments were that juries are a fairly representative sample of the population of the jurisdiction. Given that, they have people of the various levels of intelligence in a normal distribution. So clearly they are neither above nor below the influence of their emotions and/or stupidity.
Unless you are arguing that the representative sample of the jurisdiction cannot collectively be stupid (as well) because of some averaging effect, then I really don't think you and I are disagreeing, per se.
Gabe was the one claiming that people who felt Juries could be stupid were the ones not knowing what they are talking about, And I'd just like to point out that jury pools are selected from the same "fellow Americans" from whom a majority now believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, the same fellow Americans that once made McCarthyism all the rage, the same fellow Americans who once believed GW Bush's demagogic nonsense about Iraq possessing WMD, and the same fellow americans who fall prey time and again to episodes of mass hysteria ( ex. Mad Gasser of Mattoon) not to mention moral panic seeming at times to be an intrinsic component of our social fabric
Realistically, I think that it would be foolhardy to under estimate our society's capacity for stupidity., especially when one's own well being hangs in the balance.
schlimm Convicted One: Where do you get the notion that I communicated any notion that you owe me any answer to any question?
Convicted One:
Where do you get the notion that I communicated any notion that you owe me any answer to any question?
perhaps your semi-sarcastic comment of "Convicted One; Apparently you have chosen to not answer my question concerning what you propose to replace our current jury system".. appears on the surface to be persistence on your part?
Your original observation complaining about my having revisited this thread made me chuckle this morning, thinking about how all the "know everythings" here like to jump on people for starting new threads on subjects for which there is already a thread active. Perhaps I should have started a brand new thread observing that how anyone who believes that people who dare think juries can be stupid don't know what they are talking about, don't know what they are talking about, as well,.. just so the peanut gallery can have it's way, e'hh? LOL.
Convicted One I've gone back and re-read EVERY post I've made in this thread, and not a one of them even hints that I proposed to offer a superior alternative. So where exactly do you get the notion that I "owe" you an answer to that question?
I've gone back and re-read EVERY post I've made in this thread, and not a one of them even hints that I proposed to offer a superior alternative. So where exactly do you get the notion that I "owe" you an answer to that question?
Where do you get the notion that I communicated any notion that you owe me any answer to any question? The proper usage of quotation marks is to indicate these are someone's exact words. I never said you owe me or or this forum an answer. Since you choose to make up an imaginary conversation, there is no point in any dialogue. Ditto with your suggestion that:
"My reservation is not so much with juries, rather with people who insist that juries are above emotion/stupidity and that anyone who fails to share their view must not know what they are talking about. Gabe was wrong, in other words."
My comments were that juries are a fairly representative sample of the population of the jurisdiction. Given that, they have people of the various levels of intelligence in a normal distribution. So clearly they are neither above nor below the influence of their emotions and/or stupidity. So what is your point? [And so there can be no misunderstanding, you don't owe anyone an answer.]
schlimm Convicted One; Apparently you have chosen to not answer my question concerning what you propose to replace our current jury system (selection and compensation, as Bucyrus says, or whatever aspects you think need replacement).
Convicted One; Apparently you have chosen to not answer my question concerning what you propose to replace our current jury system (selection and compensation, as Bucyrus says, or whatever aspects you think need replacement).
My reservation is not so much with juries, rather with people who insist that juries are above emotion/stupidity and that anyone who fails to share their view must not know what they are talking about. Gabe was wrong, in other words.
Perhaps some who see themselves as part of the system, feel that (their) juries must be impeccable as a component of their own feelings of contribution to a greater common good? Experience will probably cure that over time.
The appeals process exists as a tool available to those who feel the jury "got it wrong", so until someone invents a machine than can distill the guaranteed truth from someone's mind, we'll probably have to settle for the (allegedly) unbiased opinion of 12 (allegedly) indpendant people for some time to come. But let's not get foolish and dare suppose that component is immune from ANY aspect of the human experience..
As I tried to make clear, I am not advocating doing away with the jury system. Just pay for it like government pays for everything else. As the current system is, people are bartering for their right to a jury trial by offering services in kind.
This idea that we need a draft to get people to perform jury duty is nonsense. If a trial by jury is a collective right, then let the collective pay the fair cost of calling their brethren to jury duty. The burden of jury duty varies from on district to another. And many people are excused according to some nonsensical legal privilege.
This leaves a reduced pool of jurors compared to the trial needs of society. And when these needs are the highest, the terms of jury duty are often the most stringent. The result is that people serving in these circumstances are carrying the weight of far more than just their fair allotment. Fix that part.
As several others have stated, jury duty was always considered one of those civic duties we have as citizens. (along with the draft, obeying laws, paying taxes, etc.) Perhaps in our new "every man, woman and child for themselves," civic duties are no longer part of the social fabric.
I suggest putting those receiving unemployment on jury duty - you get a very wide spattering of people and they are already receiving money for the government, and seeing as how they don't have a job the financial hardships of the time spent doing jury duty would not apply to them.
I don’t believe that it is necessary to choose between the right of a trial by jury, and a fair system of jury selection and compensation. The former is fine the way it is, and the latter should be junked and replaced.
schlimm You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If the idea of trial by jury, a right obtained with much effort in our history, offends you, then so be it, although your sarcasm ("heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries") seems excessive, but never mind. Our population has a normal distribution of intelligence. You seem to think juries are composed of more stupid people than what should be the predicted case. Ditto with the poor and whatever other socioeconomic factors you are considering. So if I understand your reasoning, those factors render them incapable of reaching fair and just verdicts, especially in civil cases (you and others brought them up). So what would you suggest using to replace this system that has stood the test of time? And BTW, why the picture of Carl Jung? Your postings appear to have nothing in common.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If the idea of trial by jury, a right obtained with much effort in our history, offends you, then so be it, although your sarcasm ("heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries") seems excessive, but never mind. Our population has a normal distribution of intelligence. You seem to think juries are composed of more stupid people than what should be the predicted case. Ditto with the poor and whatever other socioeconomic factors you are considering. So if I understand your reasoning, those factors render them incapable of reaching fair and just verdicts, especially in civil cases (you and others brought them up). So what would you suggest using to replace this system that has stood the test of time?
And BTW, why the picture of Carl Jung? Your postings appear to have nothing in common.
Well, I'll tell ya Schlimm, it's like this:
I never said that I was opposed to (or offended by ) the right to "trial by jury"...that is something you have cooked up in your own head, and read into my post, and by so doing you have gone a long way to support my premise, thank you muches!!
My reservation was with Gabe's apparent posture that juries cannot "be stupid" (or maybe it was that he was offended at the suggestion that juries can/(may) be incompetant, since he won't stand up for himself it's hard to distill what he thought he meant) when in fact the history books are a cornucopia to the contrary.
I used the criminal case scenario as a prone example because it illustrates perfectly just how susceptible we are to our own preconceived notions. and can fall prey to our own ambitions in the "stupidest" ways.
Are all juries stupid? No, I don't think so, but because the lawyers orchestrating the proceedings are LIKELY more highly educated than a majority of the jurists they perform in front of, it would be a FOOL who would believe that juries are (as a rule) too clever to be misled. My point is precisely the contrary.
Afterall, attorneys shovel that stuff for a living day in and day out, while your average jurist might get dragged into that foreign environment only a couple times in their lifetime , and potentially be overwhelmed in the process
Add to that the strong likelihood that most jurists (in a civil proceeding) will not be "deep pockets" themselves, and many might even have contempt for those who are wealthier than they are, it's not that great of a stretch to fathom that a battle proven lawyer can convince a gullible jury that their poor suffering plaintiff needs the settlement money more that the deep pocketed defendant does, actual guilt notwithstanding.
I guess that's part of the reason why there is an appeal process?
I think that one of the reasons that people believe the jury is composed of people that were "not smart enough to get out of it", is because if a person knows something about the evidence that is to be presented, (especially knowledge that either/both the Prosecution or Defense does not want to be included) they would contaminate the jury with that knowledge... That knowledge would constitute testifying without crossexamination, which is unfair. i.e.: A person with certain knowledge is excluded from the jury and that reinforces the belief that the ones that are left must be ignorant people.
A possible cure for this problem would be to allow anyone on the jury but allow any jury member to submit questions and comments to the court (during the trial) to allow both sides to address the situation and present an answer and to crossexamine the testimony of that answer.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
There is a civic duty to serve on a jury. Yes it does not pay well but if we all refused to serve (ignoring the legal problems of being a no show) our court system would fall apart. My employer believed in the jury system and continued our salary while on jury duty. The only problem was that Dallas paid $5.00 per day for jury duty and the parking was $6.00 per day. I have a handicap parking permit so the parking in any government lot is free. There are not a lot of good comments that can be said about a company that does not support the jury system. Comment come to mind such as they are cheap *&^%$#. One company in Dallas told their employees to lie to get out of service. This got out and was published in the paper. The company got a big black eye in addition to the supervisor being brought up on charges and ultimately fired. Yes, if you are self employed you have a problem. There is no big brother to pay you for time spent siting on a jury. Dallas had a good system: one trial or one day of service. Most of the trials are one to two days which is a small price to pay to protect the American way of justice. Having seen the legal systems in other countries I would not like to be there.
What bothers me about the attitude toward jury duty is that the populace seems to view trial by jury as an absolute right but despises the responsibility that corresponds with that right. If you value a trial by jury so highly, then bite the bullet and serve when called for jury duty.
My problem with jury duty is simply the money - if I was just paid a fair value to adequately compensate me for the time away from my business that jury duty would entail I would have no problem doing it - my problem with jury duty is simply that I'm worth way more than $18 a day. Or here's an idea - take people receiving unemployment and put them on Jury Duty. Hell, they don't have a job, so hence they have free time on our hands. For those of us with work we just can't afford the life disruption that Jury Duty provides.
schlimm Convicted One: My question is this. What is your purpose in exhuming a thread that came to a conclusion a while back and that you haven't been in for even longer? Do you have some personal animosity to the right to a trial by a jury? The example you tossed out as an example of jury pool contamination was for a sensational (child molestation) criminal trial and we were discussing civil suits where the emotional element is considerably less..
Convicted One: My question is this. What is your purpose in exhuming a thread that came to a conclusion a while back and that you haven't been in for even longer?
Do you have some personal animosity to the right to a trial by a jury?
The example you tossed out as an example of jury pool contamination was for a sensational (child molestation) criminal trial and we were discussing civil suits where the emotional element is considerably less..
#1. It should be abundantly clear that if I truly believed that the thread had "concluded" satisfactorily, I would have little motive to resurrect it, would I? In fact back at the time Gabe came forth with his heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries, I wished to comment then, but decided to let the rest of you "tick down" first, to avoid what appeared to be rising temperatures. Now that the dish can be served cold, I volunteered.
#2 Not at all, but I'm not going to live in denial of their fallibility the way some others here appear willing to do.
#3. No actually the emotional nature of all people, some of whom who comprise juries, is a key component to their gullibility/stupidity. I think that it's material to to my counterpoint, since we tend to let our emotions guide our judgment...frequently.
Juries also tend to be made up of people who are not wealthy, and there has been a demonstrated tendancy (in the civil trial examples you prefer) for them to make awards with defendant's money, even if guilt is doubtful...under the belief that the money will make the plaintiff's suffering somehow easier to tolerate.
that "OK" with you?
Convicted One: My question is this. What is your purpose in exhuming a thread that came to a conclusion a while back and that you haven't been in for even longer? Do you have some personal animosity to the right to a trial by a jury? The example you tossed out as an example of jury pool contamination was for a sensational (child molestation) criminal trial and we were discussing civil suits where the emotional element is considerably less..
gabe I must say, you have left yourself hangout out there a little on this one. Oh, the restraint. Gabe
I must say, you have left yourself hangout out there a little on this one.
Oh, the restraint.
Gabe
By all means, feel free to elaborate, in context or out (your choice)
Convicted One gabe: . But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance: Well Gabe, Look at the way our society frequently tends to assume guilt when an accused child molester is brought to trial, you have people (in the public domain) pounding their fists and deciding how the accused should be punished before the facts have even been heard. And those people are the people from whom juries are made.
gabe: . But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
. But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about.
This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
Well Gabe,
Look at the way our society frequently tends to assume guilt when an accused child molester is brought to trial, you have people (in the public domain) pounding their fists and deciding how the accused should be punished before the facts have even been heard. And those people are the people from whom juries are made.
ccltrains We frequently go to our favorite coffee shop in Dallas called Legal Grounds for our latte fix. The shop is owned by a lawyer who named all of the coffee drinks with legal names. The shop is decorated with the legal books that all lawyers have. I assume that his legal research is done on the net now rather than looking through the volumes. Above the door he has the sign: A jury consists of 12 people, who are determining your fate, who were too stupid to get out of jury service. In my 70 years I have been called for jury duty about 8 times. I do not consider myself stupid. I have both a BS and MS in engineering and am a registered professional engineer in two states. I have considered it my civic duty to serve and have not tried to dodge jury service, even though it can sometimes be a pain. It is a sad commentary on life when over 200 jurors are summoned and about 1/3 of them show up. I have seen the judge get mad when there are insufficient jurors to fill the required panels. Then bench warrants are sent out which I agree with.
We frequently go to our favorite coffee shop in Dallas called Legal Grounds for our latte fix. The shop is owned by a lawyer who named all of the coffee drinks with legal names. The shop is decorated with the legal books that all lawyers have. I assume that his legal research is done on the net now rather than looking through the volumes. Above the door he has the sign: A jury consists of 12 people, who are determining your fate, who were too stupid to get out of jury service.
In my 70 years I have been called for jury duty about 8 times. I do not consider myself stupid. I have both a BS and MS in engineering and am a registered professional engineer in two states. I have considered it my civic duty to serve and have not tried to dodge jury service, even though it can sometimes be a pain. It is a sad commentary on life when over 200 jurors are summoned and about 1/3 of them show up. I have seen the judge get mad when there are insufficient jurors to fill the required panels. Then bench warrants are sent out which I agree with.
To you, sir, I say thank you. Whether you agree or disagree with my position.
gabe . But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
Well Gabe, You just may be correct in that assumption, provided you're willing to wear blinders to maintain an intentionally narrow perspective on the concept.
History is full of cases where a jury has been successfully manipulated ( O.J. Simpson, officer Stacey Koon, I could go on and on)
And often this is a direct result of the unofficial partnership between judges and prosecutors where you seem to believe it is your job to put people* behind bars, (as opposed to' finding justice' )
Juries are made up of fallible people, and therefore any assumption that Juries cannot be "stupid' is folly in and of it's own self.
*people who are not a "part" of the law enforcement industry, anyway
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.