Professional jurors would seem to violate the principal of "jury of peers". Some people on trial are crackpots. Prospective jurors who would rather not fulfill their civic duty seem to find a way out.
So, a professional jury that is trained on procedures, pays attention, and ultimately *wants* to ensure justice is served appropriately per the evidence presented could be a good thing.
You would not be deliberately obtuse would you? The judge is a government employee. The prosecutor is a government employee who has to be indoctrinated by government required "woke" training. Professional jurors would be subjected to same crap just as the military is. They would no longer be impartial. They would be fully indoctrinated in victimhood and social justice and environmental concerns and any other issues of interest the government might have, depending on which party is in power and has the most bureaucrats among its employees.
Thanks. Professional jurors are not necessarily, in my opinion, impartial fellow citizens. If they are volunteers who receive a minimum expense allowance they might meet the definition. I think of the training I had to complete and be tested on just to be a volunteer tax preparer for low income and elderly taxpayers. There is plenty of opportunity to be trained in a biased manner. Bias would certainly be included by whatever bureaucrats are charged with certifying the jurors and the program. Of course jurors in the existing system have prejudices but they are individual and not reinforced by training.
$15/day plus one way mileage, and only from the second day onwards, isn't even Federal tipped wage. It makes jury duty a burden.
When the training is about how to deliberate and follow the judge's instructions, I don't see much room for introducing bias. And biases can be counteracted.
A bigger issue than crackpots on a jury is the general lack of interest in serving on a jury: it takes time out of your life, often for little/no pay depending on the length of the case ($15/day after the first day for California). Many people hope to not be selected, and may provide answers during questioning to avoid selection. Once selected, many can't wait for the case to end: this may lead to lack of interest in the details of the case, and bad decisions being made by a jury in the interest of ending their service.
One possible change to jury duty is to have a pool of professional jurors that are assigned to random cases, or at least some types of cases. Jury selection would be drastically reduced or removed entirely; the jurors would be knowledgeable on their instructions for deliberations; and would likely lead to decisions being made less on an emotional basis and mostly/solely on the facts of the case at hand.
What is not conservative about DeSantis? He's certainly more conservative than Trump. If a tinge of populism is disqualifying, democrats will win every time. Do you want no opposition and only compromise? Democrats will always toe the line when it's time to vote. Maybe Sinema and Manchin are part-time exceptions but there would never be a compromise of any consequence if two more republicans were defeated.
DeSantis seems to be another big government right-wing populist. I'm not impressed by his pandemic response or his drive to restrict the First Amendment rights of social media companies.
Florida's pandemic response has been just as effective, maybe even more so, than any large state. I have not seen really big government policies enacted in Florida. Certainly nothing like the current federal administration is attempting to implement.
I suppose you also approve of newspapers being granted First Amendment protection to print only what supports their political philosophy, to skew the news for that purpose and to protect criminals.
Professional jurors would seem to violate the principal of "jury of peers". Some people on trial are crackpots. Prospective jurors who would rather not fulfill their civic duty seem to find a way out.
"Jury of peers" isn't in the Constitution: just an impartial jury (6th Amendment). Also, "peers" seems to mean just fellow citizens. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html
So, a professional jury that is trained on procedures, pays attention, and ultimately *wants* to ensure justice is served appropriately per the evidence presented could be a good thing.
If they ever become government employees, they are no longer impartial fellow citizens.
Oh, are government employees not citizens?
And in terms of impartiality, how so?
You would not be deliberately obtuse would you? The judge is a government employee. The prosecutor is a government employee who has to be indoctrinated by government required "woke" training. Professional jurors would be subjected to same crap just as the military is. They would no longer be impartial. They would be fully indoctrinated in victimhood and social justice and environmental concerns and any other issues of interest the government might have, depending on which party is in power and has the most bureaucrats among its employees.
Judges are often elected in the areas most people deal with courts: at the county level.
County DAs are often elected officials.
Counties are varied in their demographics, so yeah: I'm gonna go ahead and say this isn't any more of an issue than bias in the general jury pool.
Thanks for the anti-government rant, though.
You're welcome. Any time.
Thanks. Professional jurors are not necessarily, in my opinion, impartial fellow citizens. If they are volunteers who receive a minimum expense allowance they might meet the definition. I think of the training I had to complete and be tested on just to be a volunteer tax preparer for low income and elderly taxpayers. There is plenty of opportunity to be trained in a biased manner. Bias would certainly be included by whatever bureaucrats are charged with certifying the jurors and the program. Of course jurors in the existing system have prejudices but they are individual and not reinforced by training.
$15/day plus one way mileage, and only from the second day onwards, isn't even Federal tipped wage. It makes jury duty a burden.
When the training is about how to deliberate and follow the judge's instructions, I don't see much room for introducing bias. And biases can be counteracted.
If that's the scale fine. If we end up with several million retired bureaucrats making $40,000 a year as professional jurors, it's not ok.
Justice has a price tag.
No justice is likely from bureaucrats. The price tag is not a concern of mine. It's what the jury would become - an arm of the state.
A bigger issue than crackpots on a jury is the general lack of interest in serving on a jury: it takes time out of your life, often for little/no pay depending on the length of the case ($15/day after the first day for California). Many people hope to not be selected, and may provide answers during questioning to avoid selection. Once selected, many can't wait for the case to end: this may lead to lack of interest in the details of the case, and bad decisions being made by a jury in the interest of ending their service.
One possible change to jury duty is to have a pool of professional jurors that are assigned to random cases, or at least some types of cases. Jury selection would be drastically reduced or removed entirely; the jurors would be knowledgeable on their instructions for deliberations; and would likely lead to decisions being made less on an emotional basis and mostly/solely on the facts of the case at hand.
I’m don’t think professional juries or allowing interested people to opt out is a bad idea.
What is not conservative about DeSantis? He's certainly more conservative than Trump. If a tinge of populism is disqualifying, democrats will win every time. Do you want no opposition and only compromise? Democrats will always toe the line when it's time to vote. Maybe Sinema and Manchin are part-time exceptions but there would never be a compromise of any consequence if two more republicans were defeated.
DeSantis seems to be another big government right-wing populist. I'm not impressed by his pandemic response or his drive to restrict the First Amendment rights of social media companies.
Florida's pandemic response has been just as effective, maybe even more so, than any large state. I have not seen really big government policies enacted in Florida. Certainly nothing like the current federal administration is attempting to implement.
I suppose you also approve of newspapers being granted First Amendment protection to print only what supports their political philosophy, to skew the news for that purpose and to protect criminals.