The Trench Reynolds Crime Report

Crime News That Matters

I was watching Law & Order tonight. I know it’s an overly dramatized show but it made me think of something. In a trial, whether it be civil or criminal, the fate of the defendant rests in the hands of 12 ordinary people yanked off the street. In most cases, these people have little to no knowledge of the law. We ask 12 people who more than likely would rather not be there to interpret the complexities of the law in rendering their decisions. I think this is woefully inadequate. I doubt you could pull 12 people off the street and have them locate Canada on a map let alone understand the law. My solution to this as you’ve probably guessed is professional juries. People that have backgrounds in law that are paid to be juries. They would be made up of attorneys from different specialties. Prosecutors, public defenders, family lawyers, etc. Not only do I think it would speed up the judicial process but I think some of the more idiotic verdicts of our time would have had different outcomes. Maybe OJ would have actually been found guilty. Maybe that woman would not have been awarded a gazillion dollars for spilling hot coffee into her lap. But like most theories mine would only work in a perfect world. In reality, I’m sure there would be deals made between lawyers on the case and lawyers in the jury. But it’s something to think about.

6 thoughts on “Professional Juries

  1. StigMata says:

    glad to have ya back


  2. Swift says:

    I’ve agreed with this thought at several points in my life till I think about it and realize that the .doc says ‘Judged by a jury of your Peers.’ if they’re paid lawmeisters, then they’re not really 99% of the public’s peers. To be judged and senteced by a paid jury or a jury of fools? Who knows. I’d probably opt for the fools if I was ever the one in the badboy seat.



  3. Nickolaus says:

    Professional Jury is a damn good idea especially if they are well researched in criminal law. Something like that would come in handy when putting serial killers behind bars.


  4. jim says:

    I’ve been in the “bad-boy seat” once or twice, and though I one of the cases I deserved up to 15 years and some heafty fines… 1 very expensive lawyer, 1 dumb assed cop, 1 even dumber D.A., and a jury of my so called pears gave me an A.C.O.D. with a little pink bow wrapped around it. The Assault with intent charge (I know, I know. I was stupid kid) was not only cleared, but you will never find it on my name because of our wonderful system. Not that IM not gratefull for my situation, I know I didnt deserve it and we all know people who have done worse have gotten the same.


  5. Rico says:

    The idea is that the jury is supposed to be “clueless,” and it’s up to the State to find you guilty. If the jury is up to date on all off the technicalities, they would be working for our against you. The jury needs to be impartial, and the best way to do that is to pick twelve schmoes off the street.


  6. Muki says:

    Folks, let’s consider something about the complexity of law.

    If law is too complicated for the average schmuck on the street, how can someone like me “stay legal?”

    It’s possible that one of the intended side-effects of the “jury of your peers,” is that the law should not be so unnecessarily confusing that it’s beyond the common man.

    Maybe we need to simplify the law. I mean, they’re supposed to be, “self evident.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: