Professional juries are better than the current system of peers. (eg 12+ are still selected by ballot, and some can be objected to by either lawyer, however rather than a random selection from the electoral role, these people are trained and paid to attend court every day.)?


Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

Professional juries are better than the current system of peers. (eg 12+ are still selected by ballot, and some can be objected to by either lawyer, however rather than a random selection from the electoral role, these people are trained and paid to attend court every day.)

You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.


Reasons To Disagree

I served Jury duty because it is my civic responsibility, its called a "duty" for a reason. Educated (ie high paid) people may find excuses not to attend, but that does not make them more intelligent, it just makes them selfish. A Professional Jurer would be a cheap, underpaid, undertrained Judge with 11 others just like him/her. That would not be my peers.

There appears to be no evidence to suggest that such jurers would provide a better justice system.

I think professional jurors would quickly grow a set of personal prejudices making them highly unreliable. This is bad idea, just look at what lawyers have become

The current system would work if the compensation were not a joke. We have proffesional jury's they are called JP's and 3 of them make a judge. our Law from the Magna Crta ensures the right of Judgement by peers, but unless the theft of time by jury duty is compensated fully, only a select few who do not have others depending on them get to serve If were remove Joury's the whole legal system will become a closed shop like the Family Courts are. They we will truely have the best justice system Money can buy. We need someone outside the system to keep it honest.

PROFESSIONAL JURORS WOULD DESENSITISE AND NOT TREAT ALL CASES FAIRLY. sorry to shout but i had to make my point.

who would choose the choosers of justice? the importance is that no-one has control over a jury - but for the society as a whole. judges are the ones on salary here.

What kind of job would that be? Would "reasonable doubt" remain reasonable under these conditions? Would these Professional jurors be able to remain "reasonable"? As it is a jury of your peers are often not your peers not everyone turns up for jury duty and Not everyone is elegible for jury duty.

 

Reasons To Agree

Having served as a juror once the prospect of ever being judged by a jury on my innocence is a scary proposition. It is also interesting to note that generally it is a lower educated panel of people as the most intellegent people generally find an excuse to not attend.

This is a good concept in cases where the issues are particularly complex. The average person would struggle to understand the nuances of securities law, for instance. The kind of trials that most concern society - violent and sexual crime, etc - by contrast are understandable by most people and thus jurors could be drawn from a wider pool. As for not wanting "cheap, underpaid, untrained judge(s)", clearly the commenter has never appeared before a JP! Or for that matter some of the people in the Small Claims Tribunal. I have - and many make the average jury look like the Law Commission.

Professional experts are always better than uninformed public. Now thinking about how voting works, and get nervous.

I haven't heard this one before - it sounds a reasonable proposition. The selection process is too easily abused in favour of crim's. What worries me is the selection (political influences - PC???) and the training - brain-washing in PC ideals.

Reasons for Remain Neutral

I'm neutral on this because I believe that for most matters a professional jury would be a disaster. So much law uses the term "reasonable" ie "reasonable cause to suspect", "reasonable search and seizure" and in these circumstances "reasonable" isdefined as being what the average man on the street would consider reasonable. On the other hand for certain cases involving highly technical complex issues such as medical malpractice and corporate fraud or corporate governance, international tax evasion and money laundering offences then there juries should be restricted to experts, professionals and people with specific knowledge.

It's tempting, but better to make the present system work. We're in the sorry state where "Do you want to be tried by 12 people who were too stupid to weasel out of jury service?" Compensate employers for the time lost by their employees' service.

My View

You can make your comments once you have voted.

You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.

Back to all voting categories or
Back to "Law And Order"

Please tell all your friends to come and vote, and please link to our website if you can.

We use Web Widgets Free Website Builder to easily update our website ourselves
and provide you with this voting software.