Professional Jurors? NO WAY!!!

Bruce Norbeck MadTom at IX.NETCOM.COM
Wed Jul 19 21:31:06 MDT 1995


        Dick Braendle, & others:
 
>Yes, but you would have to change the whole adversary system to get de-
fense attorneys who would really seek the truth and not try to get an
>acquittal for their clients.
 
        Sir, I will concede that defense attornies have taken extreme
liberties with our justice system. But I fail to understand why you con-
centrate your criticism solely on them -- after all, there are a number
of rotten prosecutors in the system, too; & a lot of defense attornies
used to be prosecutors who went into private practice to make more cash.
For example, when some slimeball gets a felony charge plea bargained to
a misdemeanor, the prosecutor has to agree to that.
        But, IMHO, it is precisely the adversary system that is causing
a lot of the problems. Both defense & prosecuting attornies are bent on
making a name for themselves, because, in our society, making a name for
yourself is the fastest way to make more money, as well as to get your
name recognized by the public should you ever run for office. This needs
to change. How do we change it? That's the real problem.
        As for the justice system, of course it's slanted to the defend-
ant. It has to be. The prosecution has the full weight of the government
behind it; the defendant has only his or her attorney. All of those who
scream about the criminals taking advantage of the justice system have
apparently never been charged with a crime; if they did, you can bet my
paycheck they'll demand every right they now are complaining about. &
well they should, hypocritical as it is.
 
>If they had  professional juries, a plea bargain would have occured
>before the trial began and saved a fortune.
 
        So, who's going to teach people to be professional jurors? The
same public school system that now is run solely by liberals? How do you
determine whether that professional juror is competent or not?
        Best of all -- who are these professionals going to work for?
Are they going to be public employees, paid through tax dollars? I can
just imagine the massive bureaucracy THAT would entail; this, in an age
when people are thoroughly, & rightly, sick of bureaucracy.
        The current system is full of holes. I'm certain that changing
it to accomodate professional jurors would make the system MUCH worse.
If these professionals are going to be public sector employees, than we
will get a lot of poorly motivated, poorly trained, poorly educated peo-
ple are judging guilt or innocence. They will be jurors because it's a
civil service job, & for no other reason.
        & if they're going to be employees of a private corporation,
contracted to the state... shudder. Such would be under pressure to de-
crease costs by decreasing trial time, which would play absolute hell
with justice.
        Either way, we're going to be MUCH worse off with professional
jurors than we are now. I realize the system is broken -- but making it
worse is no way to improve it.
 
>How the job continues to go well!!
 
        The new job is going well enough, but yikes! I never realized,
back when I was just a Cartographic Technician, that being a manager
could be so much work. I might be going to Hyderabhad, India, training
workers there to do what we do. I'd much rather hire American workers to
do it... but, that's what we get in a free market economy, the right to
take work away from our countrymen in order to cut our costs a little
bit more. Despite that, I'll take a free market over pseudo-nationalist
protectionism, ala Pat Buchanan & Ross Perot, any day.
 
regards,
bruce
madtom at ix.netcom.com
Libertarian, pagan, pot-smoker, patriot -- DON'T TREAD ON ME!
        Ignorance is a lot more expensive than education.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list