The jury system is a joke

[321Mike]

I just finished participating in a mock trial. A day and a half of lawyer presentations, then an afternoon of deliberation to reach a verdict. There were 30 people altogether and we split into groups of 10 to deliberate.

What a bunch of morans! I had an idea they were a little slow by the stupid questions they asked during the presentations - despite the fact everybody was told NOT to ask any questions during them. The case was interesting, and the plaintiff made some good points. But, the defendant was clearly in the right. I went into the deliberation expecting some idiocy and I got it. There was one person that agreed with me. The other 8 were adamant that the defendant (a very big company) be severly punished. They wanted to give the plaintiff (a family with an injured child) about 50% more compensatory damages than they asked for and double the punitive damages.

I had planned to just go along to get out of there faster, but I couldn't believe the stupidity. I kept referring to documents presented by the defendant - I might as well have been speaking Greek. My fellow mock jurors failed to understand and remember one bit of the real evidence in the case. All they could remember were a bunch of video clips. Some that supposedly showed why the product was defective and one highly edited clip of a deposition that made one of the defendant's engineers look like a jackass. I tried to talk about evidence and all they could say was, "What if it were your child? You wouldn't think 100 million is too much if it was your child!" Then they would all nod in agreement as if they had said something profound.

I'm glad it was just a mock trial, but I'm sure the real jury will be just as ridiculous.

[4_2_it]

At least we now know the current whereabouts of the OJ and Micheal Jackson jurors.

[tonypaladino]

weclome to the American justice system, where you are judged by people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

If I were ever accused of a crime where people might have undue sympathy for my accuser, I would probably opt to waive my right to a jury, and have a trial by judge.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I just finished participating in a mock trial. A day and a half of lawyer presentations, then an afternoon of deliberation to reach a verdict. There were 30 people altogether and we split into groups of 10 to deliberate.

What a bunch of morans! I had an idea they were a little slow by the stupid questions they asked during the presentations - despite the fact everybody was told NOT to ask any questions during them. The case was interesting, and the plaintiff made some good points. But, the defendant was clearly in the right. I went into the deliberation expecting some idiocy and I got it. There was one person that agreed with me. The other 8 were adamant that the defendant (a very big company) be severly punished. They wanted to give the plaintiff (a family with an injured child) about 50% more compensatory damages than they asked for and double the punitive damages.

I had planned to just go along to get out of there faster, but I couldn't believe the stupidity. I kept referring to documents presented by the defendant - I might as well have been speaking Greek. My fellow mock jurors failed to understand and remember one bit of the real evidence in the case. All they could remember were a bunch of video clips. Some that supposedly showed why the product was defective and one highly edited clip of a deposition that made one of the defendant's engineers look like a jackass. I tried to talk about evidence and all they could say was, "What if it were your child? You wouldn't think 100 million is too much if it was your child!" Then they would all nod in agreement as if they had said something profound.

I'm glad it was just a mock trial, but I'm sure the real jury will be just as ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous. Therefore, as long as someone dissents, then conversation must continue. Otherwise, you have a lynch mob. As long as you stood your ground, the morans could scream until they were blue in the face about the "children," and it wouldn't matter towards deciding the fate of the defendant, except maybe reinforcing your desire to do the right thing.

And, call me a bastard if you want, but I would say that 100 million would be too much for my unemployed, non-contributing-to-society child.

[xadrez]

You've convinced me, lets get rid of the jury system and go back to tribunals and arbitrary convictions and executions.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous. Therefore, as long as someone dissents, then conversation must continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true in civil cases? I think what he was talking about is more likely to occur in a a civil matter as that is about money nad "sticking it to the deep pocketed corporation."

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous. Therefore, as long as someone dissents, then conversation must continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true in civil cases? I think what he was talking about is more likely to occur in a a civil matter as that is about money nad "sticking it to the deep pocketed corporation."

[/ QUOTE ]

Has to unanimous, but juror can allocate between the parties. Also in civil cases, there is no reasonable doubt standard. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence which is what leads to the allocation of blame.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same amount of words, you could have just told him what his mistake was. I'd be interested too. Is it majority for civil trials or something? I don't know. I guess I will leave the thread.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same amount of words, you could have just told him what his mistake was. I'd be interested too. Is it majority for civil trials or something? I don't know. I guess I will leave the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes most Civil cases can be decided by a certain majority of the jurors (not sure what the percent is). Criminal cases require a unanumous decision. And the other poster was right, while in a criminal trial there has to be proff beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case only a preponderance of evidence is necessary, which in simple terms, someone can be found guilty if it is more likely than not that that are.