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.
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).
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?
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..
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?
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.]
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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
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 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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.