I’ve seen this proposal pop up a few places on the internet, and I’d like to know what TS think of the idea. Part of the problem with our system of justice is that in order to prosecute an offender you need to convince 12 random people that they committed a crime. This requires teaching those people what that crime is, and when necessary the nuances between that particular law and similar laws (murder vs. manslaughter or robbery vs. burglary for example).
The proposal is that jury duty should be its own job, with some sort of legal education involved. This would reduce the time needed to conduct jury trials, because the nuances of the alleged crimes would not need to be explained in trial, and would also reduce the chance of the jury returning an incorrect verdict by weighing emotion over legal statute.
Would you agree with such a proposal, or should jury trials be held as they are currently? What is your reasoning?
Any lawyers here: If such a proposal were to take effect, would it change the way you argue a case? How so?
submitted by /u/JaxxisR
[link] [comments]