Should We Abolish the Jury System?

Townhall.com ^ | July 6, 2011 | Ben Shapiro

[Peter from Rutland]

Ben Shapiro, meet Nancy Dis-Grace. I’m sure the two of you will get along famously!

[samtheman]

Oh, absolutely. Because one jury believed a prosecutor hadn’t proved a case beyond a reasonable doubt, we should replace trial by jury with trial by Ben Shapiro, the Philosopher-King. That’ll assure justice for all.

I love it when the first response-post of the thread is also the best post of the thread. Good work, Tax-chick.

[rellimpank]

--of all of the garbage about this trial I have tried to ignore, this has to be the worst.

--she was acquitted by a jury who were present at the trial and heard the evidence---period.

[bmwcyle]

I want Democrats to decide everything. /sarcasm

[Sacajaweau]

The Scott Peterson case: They never knew when, where or how Lacey Peterson died.

Same basics...I wanna play...no responsibility. Scott's in jail...Casey's in a hotel...smirking....

[redgolum]

True.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Can you imagine taking away trial by jury and giving that power to the government?

[Sgt_Schultze]

I’m not assessing the competence of these specific jurors. I should have included quote marks instead of the air quotes I used, as I was mocking Ben Shapiro’s assessment of the competence of jurors in general.

[screaminsunshine]

Right on! and while we are at it why have a trial? It is time to get a real justice system unencumbered by stupid old rules made up 300 years ago by White Rich Slave Owners. Just look at this mess. Think of all the tax money that could be saved. Hell we could take Yankee Stadium and put that witch in there on live tv. Then we could have an internet vote to burn her or let her go. Just think how much fun that would be. Now that would be real Democracy and provide entertainment.

[apillar]

Heck no, a jury is your one small chance, the wild card so to speak, in a mostly rigged judicial system. You would stand no chance if you got somebody in the legal establishment down on you if we were under a European style system where trials were conducted by three judge panels.

I worked in a small town law office during my college days and all my beliefs in a fair and impartial system were quickly shattered. I know for a fact that the result of many trials were decided over lunch before the trial ever took place, which isn't too hard when the judge, the prosecuting attorney and the public defender all were old buddies from law school who ate lunch together most days. The entire system is basically a legal mafia, with members of the legal profession watching out for each other.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you very much!

I usually like Ben’s articles, but this is “Quest for Cosmic Justice” stuff, and it’s a pipe dream. He should have recognized this and trashed it instead of hitting “send” to Townhall.

[agere_contra]

I am amazed by the prevalent attitude to Jury duty that I see in the States.

Honor the Jurors. Greatly increase the compensation/tax breaks for Jurors. Greatly increase their living standards and accorded respect while sitting on Juries. At the same time - make it much harder to get out of Jury service.

Anyone who says something like "he/she was too stupid to get out of Jury service" should be regarded as a slope-shouldered idiot.

[Scanian]

NO!

It is one of the last bastions of citizen power.

[FourPeas]

Well said.

[Mr.Unique]

Nowadays, juries have become a hallmark of our heavily bureaucratized system. Those who have day jobs are eager to avoid serving on juries, mainly because the convoluted rules of procedure and evidence have turned summary trials into week-long events. By and large, only the least offensive -- and not coincidentally, the dumbest -- tend to be selected for juries. As the aphorism goes, the problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

Obviously, we should have trial by those that really, really closely follow the story on the news. /s

A recent jury that I was on had a retired military officer, a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, a chef, the wife of a retired cop, a naturalized citizen from Ireland...among others.

I'm curious as to how many folks here ranting about juries have ever served on a jury in a criminal trial.

[GonzoGOP]

To the extent that the jury system needs revamping, it is in the direction of giving juries greater leeway to even override unjust laws (i.e. jury nullification), if necessary, not making juries more subservient to judges and prosecutors.

The best way to revamp the jury system would be to disallow removal of a juror without a direct statement of cause. Conflict of interest can't be allowed on the jury. But that is a demonstrable cause for dismissal. Anything short of that and the jury selection should be random, no exceptions.

Second, no or limited continuances. Once the jury is seated the trial moves forward. No breaks, no holidays, no CNN interviews and no golf games for the lawyers. If a trial goes more than one day the prosecutors and lawyers get to sleep in bunk beds in a back room of the court house. Just watch how few year long trials you see when the billion dollar lawyers have to give up their pampered poodle lives while the trial is in process.

[cripplecreek]

Can you imagine taking away trial by jury and giving that power to the government?

Irreparable harm was already done when the supreme court ruled that "Jurors need not be informed of their rights".

[AAABEST]

Agreed. If the prosecution cannot even establish how Caylee died, there is really no proof a crime was committed.

That's a total pile of crap.

We find skeletons all the time without knowing exactly how the victim died. All that usually is ever proven in such cases is WHO put the skeleton there.

We know that the Anthony She-devil was driving around with her little girl's rotting corpse in the trunk - her mouth and nose taped shut with duct tape.

I suppose the morons amongst us need the video tape, but some of us don't.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

There used to be rules as to who could serve on a jury. There are still some rules limiting who may serve but in many instances they are ignored.

[VanDeKoik]

The jury of her peers made their decision. The Constitution did not specify that all decisions would be to everyone’s liking.

Move along.