[Elendur]

i agree. good article, making valid points.
however, a corrupted jury system, serves no one,
but lawyers.

just as our Founder Father’s certainly wanted INFORMED voters.
not people living for generations on government handouts, who need the “D” next to the name, to know who to vote for.

...the Jury system, deliberately gets rid of the most intelligent and knowledgeable jurors. ...if you follow news, you’re gone. if you even know what “jury nullification” means, you’re gone. etc.

[He Rides A White Horse]

just as our Founder Father’s certainly wanted INFORMED voters.

This problem goes beyond juries; it is prevalent in every aspect of life. Our Constitutional Republic depends on a well-informed, educated populace. It is the lifeblood.

Communism depends on dumbed-down subjects; which is what we have now. Point well taken.

[brytlea]

I wish what trials like this would do (and I’m not really for showing the proceedings on tv as they happen—I think there must be a better way than the circuses we have now) is to get the public to clamor for some changes in things like the way juries are selected. Is it REALLY the best idea to let the lawyers have such a hand in choosing jurors? Was this really what the original system had in mind? I somehow don’t think so.

When I see the system at work, truth and justice and fairness are never the words that spring to my mind. But the lawyers sure seem to like the status quo...

[caww]

“....a corrupted jury system, serves no one,
but lawyers.”..... That's exactly right. There are “peers” who can and understand critical thinking, and there are “peers” who haven't a clue what that is or means. This Jury IMO did not deliberate the case...nor the evidence of....and lacked the ability to do so. When the Jurors themselves have shady backgrounds...and yet appointed, then there can be no rightful justice. There needs to be standards for those who are appointed. One of which if they have a criminal history they should not be determining the outcome of a trial.