At 08:32 AM 7/11/01, Robert Shaw wrote:
>I couldn't say if ill-educated juries are a real problem, but if they
>are it would be better to vet the jurors for competence than to
>abolish them.
Here in the US, it frequently seems that ill-educated jurors are more
likely to get to hear a case than well-educated ones: when the lawyers are
interviewing potential jurors at the start of a trial, each side is allowed
to reject a certain number without having to explain why, and many times as
soon as they learn that a person is well-educated or has a job that
suggests that they are well-educated, that juror is dismissed. The idea,
apparently, is that the lawyers don't want educated persons who will think
for themselves, but rather jurors who are likely to listen to what the
lawyers say and vote the way they want them to.
-- Ronn! :)
