> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Shaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Trial by jury
>
>
> From: "Ronn Blankenship"
>
> > 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.
>
> Jury selection doesn't work in quite the same way in the UK. Lawyers
> have less freedom to reject jurors. However people can ask to
> be exempted
> from jury service, after they've been called up, for various
> reasons. It's
> not intentional, but those exemptions are most easily and most often
> claimed by the well educated and wealthy.
I am scheduled at the end of the year to go jury. I will get paid 10$ to go
in (and I have to pay for my lunch and parking). I will lose approximately
400$+ income (per day) by going in. And to add insult to injury, I have to
claim that 10$ on my taxes as income. While I may not be wealthy or smart, I
will lose a lot of money when I do my public service.
>
> > 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.
> >
I think I will start off with a min-treatise/tirade on two-way transparency.
That ought to get me off the juror list real fast.
Nerd From Hell
> In complex cases, such as fraud trials, just understanding
> the evidence
> may require many people to exert more mental effort than they have
> since they left school. The argument then is that if the jury can't
> understand the evidence they are unlikely to be able to make a
> satisfactory judgement. Some lawyers claim they don't like the idea
> of guilt or innocence being decided by whichever barrister is most
> charismatic but would rather have the merits of their case decided
> by an impartial, and presumably more competent, judge.
>
> --
> Robert
>
>
>
"WorldSecure <freightliner.com>" made the following
annotations on 07/11/01 09:41:15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] -- Content Manager:
The information contained in this communication is confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive
it. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, Please immediately notify the sender by
phone if possible or via email message.
==============================================================================
