There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise. They really are a problem and are giving the legal profession a bad name. One third of $5000 is a little over $1500 and if you file 6-10 of these a day at a cost of $50 each it can be big dollars for minimal work. Not the income from the big class action suits, but a good living.
As to employing a cleaner to prevent slip and falls we do this in a big way, but the next customer after the area was swept could spill a drink and bam-another slip and fall case.
We had a similar case on a bus. The bus was passing a dump truck and the mirrors of the bus and truck hit and rocked the bus slightly. The driver parked the bus and exited to talk to the truck driver. While he was off the bus one of our better citizens ran up and down the bus telling everyone to moan and say they were hurt. He looked around to find a good place to lay down and fake an injury. He did have an ambulance chaser file a law suit. Unknown to him and the lawyer this bus was being used for a test of our new video recording system. The lawyer came into the office to discuss the lawsuit and we pulled out the video. After looking at the video the lawyer withdrew from the case. Video does work.
We even staged a small accident with an empty bus in not the best area of town fully equipped with video. Six people hopped on the empty staged bus and claimed to be hurt. This one did not go to court.
ccltrains There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
OK, and if a person did slip and fall, and asked for an honest sum to pay for their medical care, under your premise it is even less likely that a lawyer would actually take their case to trial.
Within your theory of denying compensation to everyone, which presumes there is no such thing as a legitimate "slip and fall," the moral of the story is that it is morally justifiable to treat the fraud and the injured exactly alike?
Really? That's OK? A societal "good"?
I have already become more involved in this debate than I should, and I appreciate ICLand's sentiments--as well as his apparent fondness for my favorite line--but, I have absolutely no problem with ccltrains' transit program of taking most every case to trial.
Like a plaintiffs' decision to take a case to trial, a defendant has an absolute right to have a jury of its peers say, no, the defendant was not at fault. That is what the Court system is for. In my view, any plaintiffs' lawyer who takes a case, whether it be a $3000 slip or fall or a $300,000,000 class action has a moral obligation to be prepared to take the case to trial and advocate for his or her client if the case does not settle.
I will always respect a defednant's decision to vigorously oppose a case. It is my job to show the defendant that they miscalculated, and a jury's job to determine who made the better decision.
My primary complaint associated with this post is bad mouthing juries who ultimately adjudicate the decision, judging all plaintiffs by a few cases, or defendants moaning when they made the wrong decision not to settle--did you know that McDonalds was offered $20,000 to settle the infamous $7,000,000 coffee thrid-degree burn case?
Gabe
ICLand ccltrains: There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise. OK, and if a person did slip and fall, and asked for an honest sum to pay for their medical care, under your premise it is even less likely that a lawyer would actually take their case to trial. Within your theory of denying compensation to everyone, which presumes there is no such thing as a legitimate "slip and fall," the moral of the story is that it is morally justifiable to treat the fraud and the injured exactly alike? Really? That's OK? A societal "good"?
ccltrains: There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
ccltrains I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court.
I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
gabe My primary complaint associated with this post is bad mouthing juries who ultimately adjudicate the decision, judging all plaintiffs by a few cases, or defendants moaning when they made the wrong decision not to settle--did you know that McDonalds was offered $20,000 to settle the infamous $7,000,000 coffee thrid-degree burn case?
Good point!
And I think that underscores what happens when corporations of any type place themselves in the position of forcing someone to go to court because, unfortunately, they made a decision that it was such a "small" case, that the defendant could not afford to take it to trial.
I have read about the McDonald's case and was appalled. McDonald's had adopted this policy of "only pay the meritorious" cases, but a review had shown that the policy had been applied so broadly that their own internal standard of "meritorious" meant that they had made two conclusions: 1) McDonald's would settle only if there was no way that McDonald's could win and 2) the damages were large enough to justify a defense lawyer taking the case. So, injured "little people" rarely got anything. Corporate policy of "only paying meritorious" cases, from what I have read, often morphs into a "only pay meritorious big cases because we know the little cases will never to be tried because the defendants will lose (under the contingency fee theory) even if they win."
The "Third Degree Burn" case really jumped out at me. That 80 year old lady had been scalded horribly over her entire genital area requiring multiple skin grafts.
McDonald's had had 750 similar claims of scaldings requiring medical care -- all of which they rejected as a matter of policy that deemed such claims as unmeritorious. Their own safety officer thought their coffee was served too hot. Their quality control manager felt it was justified because he believed that all McDonald's coffee drinkers purchased their coffee to take home and so McDonald's had to account for the cooling on the way home. That's what he testified to. The jury found it incredible.
I've only had one civil jury experience and one criminal jury experience, and I found the people serving on the civil jury to be surprisingly well informed but, more importantly, sincere about trying to follow the Judge's written instructions. There were differences of opinion, and some strong personalities, but wherever there was a clash of opinions, everyone went back to the instructions, and the quieter people tended to apply the logic of the instructions to the facts and voted accordingly.
It was a very positive experience for me to see what actually went on during jury deliberations. I will comment that the attorney for the corporation involved had an "attitude" that didn't create any goodwill for his company; and it really was "I'm an attorney for this big company, and we get these suits all the time" kind of attitude. "A real stuffed shirt," as one of the other jurors announced at the start of deliberations. Nobody liked him. It didn't affect the outcome -- the verdict was in favor of the company -- but I could see that in very close cases, the attitude or presentation of the attorney very likely could affect an outcome.
Murphy Siding No, it appears you'd have to be overlooking what he actually said about it. It seems to me, that ccltrains has already answered that question. Maybe ccltrains could tell us how many of the cases actually wnet to court, and how many were won or lost?
No, it appears you'd have to be overlooking what he actually said about it. It seems to me, that ccltrains has already answered that question. Maybe ccltrains could tell us how many of the cases actually wnet to court, and how many were won or lost?
There was something here that didn't make much sense to me. A policy of paying "meritorious claims," but not paying fraud claims? Who instituted, and why, a policy of previously paying non-meritorious claims? That really happened? Just pay ALL claims no matter what? I can see the problem that would arise, but that's not because I might be the brightest star in the constellation, its because that would be a sure-fire invitation for EVERYBODY to file a claim. That just doesn't make sense for any organization to have that policy in the first place.
It makes no sense. Ever.
I understand the costs of litigation. I've been involved in it most of my adult life. I've been an expert witness on a number of cases, including one of the largest rail-splitting derailment cases ever filed.
A completely "meritorious" $5,000 claim has a problem: the one-third contingency fee won't cover it. Firstly, the case requires an expert witness. For reasons I don't fully understand, those damages aren't recoverable even if you win. In my neck of the woods, here's the expert witness fee schedule for the kind of stuff I am involved in: 1) review records and issue an initial opinion: $7,500. Deposition charges: all travel, expenses, $1,000 an hour. Trial time, including travel, expenses, waiting, lunch: $1,500 an hour. If the expert actually has to go out and conduct any kind of testing of materials or scenarios, add $50,000-$100,000. This may overstate comparable costs of medical experts since there are more of them and more general literature is available.
On a contingency fee case, that all comes out of the attorney's pocket, payable from the client out of the settlement or paid judgment. On a $5,000 claim; that's not a case that can go to trial no matter how "meritorious." If there is anything to be "troubled" about, its how expensive the legal system is, and how that expense, all by itself, prevents the smaller, legitimate claims from ever being tried. In many ways, it could be argued, it is a system designed to protect the large players simply because the ultimate cost of entry is so high. You may or may not think that is a "plus" overall.
The McDonald's case struck me as one where the client had really not wanted to go to trial, no doubt because of her age, and so the attorneys really low-balled the settlement just to get it settled, and then got PO'd at McDonalds at the completely unreasonable rejection, and were willing to spend what must have been a half a million dollars at least to go after what they believed was an unconscionable corporate policy.
I assume it was a very large law firm that itself had the deep pockets to do so since, as I recall, the little old lady that was scalded was being driven through the drive-through by her grandson and it didn't sound like she had much money.
mudchickenps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say.
Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. Our transit agency operates in a small geographical area, not half of the country such as a class 1. Therefore we have to be aware of our public image in our geographical small operating area by showing compassion but also protecting the interests of our stakeholders and not waste our assets . See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video.
Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. There are no expert witness fees as some "bad" doctors work in concert with the lawyers and will certify almost anything. Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove. It is a very low cost case to file in small claims and pay the doctor if he wins. For a total expenditure of $100-150 for filing fees and doctor's contingency fee it is easy money if it is settled out of court. Remember the lawyer takes about 1/3 plus costs.
As a consulting professional engineer i have done expert testimony in domestic and international tribunals. I ALWAYS was paid for time spent plus out of pocket expenses. I NEVER worked on a contingency basis as then you are concerned about the outcome and your impartiality is in question. With proper homework and preparation I have never been on the loosing side. I am glad to be retired as that track record was getting harder to maintain with time. Many cases I turned down because after preliminary analysis I deemed the case to be non winnable and told the client so after explaining my reasons. In the vast majority of the cases like this the client declined to go forward with the case. By keeping my presentation in the tribunals on a professional level I have left the court still friends with the opposing expert.
ccltrains If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. .... See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video. Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. ... Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove.
If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. .... See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video.
Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. ...
Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove.
Off list, I am advised that these are interesting points:
1) "Discovery" does not occur prior to litigation, so how a claim might be, before it can be properly investigated, deemed " without merit," is a little bit of the cart before the horse.
2) The "faked claims video" is an interesting exercise for a public agency to undertake. Done next to a housing project? Why was public money spent on that? It can't be used in any individual court case; it can't be publicized without accusations of attempting to "taint the jury pool" against legitimate claims (and that looks to be the purpose), and it permits lawyers then to seek a change of venue -- creating an expensive proposition for the defense. Indeed, if something like that aired during a pending case -- sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. So, they set up this whole thing to video ... for their own private amusement? At taxpayer expense?
3) As courts of "limited jurisdiction," most small claims courts don't have jurisdiction over personal injury cases. I suppose they could where you were, but it raises a question since usually that can't happen. [Edit: I am further advised that, at least in most jurisdictions -- and they do vary -- the purpose of small claims courts generally is to permit litigants to file without a lawyer; waiving a jury. If you use a lawyer, it can't be filed in small claims courts].
4) "Slip and Fall" cases are generally not "soft tissue" cases of the type generally referred to as "soft tissue injury" cases which are most typically automobile "rear enders," where the most common injury, "whiplash" has no external symptoms. "Slip and Fall" nearly always have external symptoms, ranging from bruising to contusions, sprains, to broken bones, fractured skulls, concussions and even paralysis. These are whole different categories of cases.
5) I did not once see the words "Claims Adjuster" used in the posts, which is a position created about 150 years ago for Class I's, including those with urban transit responsibilities, and which had for good and well-known reasons adopted policies of paying legitimate claims and resisting illegitimate claims without the necessity of spending good money to produce a video that showed that people sometimes make things up. Really, was this "Headline News" to somebody on your Board of Directors? You spent how much taxpayer money to educate this board on the obvious?
6) The very existence of a video like this is discoverable in a litigated case. It goes to "bad faith" reasons why a entity might not settle a legitimate claim promptly and fairly. It would be explosive material in the hands of a skilled lawyer attempting to prove "bad faith" settlement practices. No corporate counsel worth his salt would advise that something like this be done; it's amateur, and because of that, legally lethal. The liability on that could be enormous; far out of proportion to the underlying damages in a case. This is nearly "McDonald's Class Dumb" to produce this kind of "testimony" that can be used at trial as evidence of "attitude" toward injured parties.
7) I did see the words, "we would evaluate ...," which makes it sound like a very busy Board of Directors, but that just doesn't sound right; most people familiar with these things would refer to their Claims Adjuster or Claims Adjustment department. A very small transit agency would likely have an insurer; a large enough one, an internal Claims department. I suppose on small claims it is possible for an agency to operate all on its own "in between" an insurance carrier and a claims department. I've just never heard of one where a board of directors sits around evaluating 200 "small claims" cases a year.
8) While I can understand that a little transit entity might not have the internal expertise available to know how to handle these things, it strikes me that the reference to 200 fake claims a year at $5,000 each -- $1 million a year in claims does not strike me as a "little" transit entity -- did not require in essence reinventing the wheel by filming a useless and in some ways misleading video in order to justify ... a Claims Adjuster!
And if this sounds cynical, perhaps that's what the transit agency needed in the first place without a lot of set decorating and videography -- a good, cynical claims adjuster. And had your bunch asked just about anyone in the transit or railroad industry, I'm fairly certain that they could have skipped the TV production and gone right to the solution.
There' s something in the narrative that just doesn't hang together very well for me; perhaps it really was just a lack of experience at this agency, or perhaps I should have been a claims adjuster.
Regarding the famous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, it appears that the final reward wasn't in the millions. http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html
You apparently are a lawyer which I am not. I used the therm "we" in referring to the whole agency not the board. The claims are handled by our legal department which consists of about 12 lawyers. They do use claims adjusters. I had no intention of going into the complete legal formalities of how a case would progress through the system. I only wanted to point out that false claims do exist and we were working to limit the exposure of the agency. We do have limited immunity under state law however the immunity only is good until the next court case as any lawyer will tell you. We are not a small agency. Our service area covers 13 cities and we operate 100 miles of light rail, 35 miles of commuter rail, paratransit services, HOV lanes, and 1000 buses.
rrnut282 mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say.
Heck, that could be anyplace west of Toledo, and east of St. Louis -or maybe Kansas City . . .
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr rrnut282: mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf? Heck, that could be anyplace west of Toledo, and east of St. Louis -or maybe Kansas City . . . - Paul North.
rrnut282: mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
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, 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.
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.
*people who are not a "part" of the law enforcement industry, anyway
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.
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.
To you, sir, I say thank you. Whether you agree or disagree with my position.
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:
Well 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: 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..
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.