• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

tried by a jury of my peers?

gseeker

conflicted constantly
who can be considered my peers? Is that based on i.e.., social status, race, sex? I think america ignores that now and does that negate what we call justice? Is the government ignoring the constitution? If you were to face a trial do you think you could truly have your peers as your jury?
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
who can be considered my peers? Is that based on i.e.., social status, race, sex? I think america ignores that now and does that negate what we call justice? Is the government ignoring the constitution? If you were to face a trial do you think you could truly have your peers as your jury?
you make a good point. but i think people take jury duty really serious and try to feel it. I mean who are my peers and how would you vote. if you make peers to inclusive then you feel more connected this and tribe mentality and such,
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
"Jury of one's peers n.
A guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans."
source
 

gseeker

conflicted constantly
"Jury of one's peers n.
A guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans."
source

So who determines equality? if a person is narcissistic no one would measure up. if I'm being tried then every juror should have an i.e. above 130 but not exceeding 150. So the question is at that point, who defines equality?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Equality & peerage aren't even required by the Constitution.
The 6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".

It originated in the magna carter.
Thanx!
 
Last edited:

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Peers just means a sample of American citizens. It can't be some elite body set up particularly for that purpose; peers could be any of us. That's the point.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So who determines equality? if a person is narcissistic no one would measure up. if I'm being tried then every juror should have an i.e. above 130 but not exceeding 150. So the question is at that point, who defines equality?
As I read the description I posted, peerage need not necessarily meet any Individual particularity, but simply not exclude the more general characteristics. That is, while IQ is a normal characteristic of all people, and therefore would be expected of any juror, it cannot be used to exclude a juror, unless, I presume, it was indicative of incompetency. As explained in the description, peerage need only meet those characteristics common to the general population.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
who can be considered my peers? Is that based on i.e.., social status, race, sex? I think america ignores that now and does that negate what we call justice? Is the government ignoring the constitution? If you were to face a trial do you think you could truly have your peers as your jury?
Actually, race, social status, sex, etc., are all factors. Which is why there is jury selection isn't just random and is determined in part by the defense. However, speaking personally, I don't want a jury of my peers. The prosecution's job is to convince the jury the evidence says one thing. The defense is there to say it means something else (or, at the very least, that there is a sufficient amount of doubt concerning what the evidence says). They can do this by trotting out paid experts who will say whatever they are paid to say (not necessarily because they are lying, but perhaps because they are specialists in some field where there is not a great deal of agreement in the area about which they are testifying), they can use rhetoric, they can use charm, and all other kinds of evidence which rely on fallacious reasoning or are otherwise without logical soundness.

And the jury, without any training, without any knowledge of the law other than the little bit they are informed of by the judge and are (mis)informed of by the prosecution and/or defense, is supposed to use the fact that they are my peers, rather than, for example, a group of people who are (like judges) part of the legal system, paid by the government (perhaps elected) to learn the legal system and to be "jurors". The idea behind "jury of peers" (whatever it was, and as I've no interest in evaluating those who argue that it was not intended to be fair but to legitimize, or justify, a particular system without actually doing so) is rather fundamentally flawed. Or, at the very least, it has created a legal system in the US in which the prosecution and defense "win" by putting on a better show. My "peers" are not qualified (because I am not qualified) to understand the nuances of legal proceedings, laws, and the system itself such that for a given trial in a particular district, they (or I) would be able to tell when one side was putting on a better show, but that this was all it was.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Actually, race, social status, sex, etc., are all factors. Which is why there is jury selection isn't just random and is determined in part by the defense. However, speaking personally, I don't want a jury of my peers. The prosecution's job is to convince the jury the evidence says one thing. The defense is there to say it means something else (or, at the very least, that there is a sufficient amount of doubt concerning what the evidence says). They can do this by trotting out paid experts who will say whatever they are paid to say (not necessarily because they are lying, but perhaps because they are specialists in some field where there is not a great deal of agreement in the area about which they are testifying), they can use rhetoric, they can use charm, and all other kinds of evidence which rely on fallacious reasoning or are otherwise without logical soundness.

And the jury, without any training, without any knowledge of the law other than the little bit they are informed of by the judge and are (mis)informed of by the prosecution and/or defense, is supposed to use the fact that they are my peers, rather than, for example, a group of people who are (like judges) part of the legal system, paid by the government (perhaps elected) to learn the legal system and to be "jurors". The idea behind "jury of peers" (whatever it was, and as I've no interest in evaluating those who argue that it was not intended to be fair but to legitimize, or justify, a particular system without actually doing so) is rather fundamentally flawed. Or, at the very least, it has created a legal system in the US in which the prosecution and defense "win" by putting on a better show. My "peers" are not qualified (because I am not qualified) to understand the nuances of legal proceedings, laws, and the system itself such that for a given trial in a particular district, they (or I) would be able to tell when one side was putting on a better show, but that this was all it was.
I agree. I've always thought---well, at least for the last twenty-five years or so---that juries should be made up of professional jurists. People trained in law, psychology, logic, statistics, etc. A jury of peers is just as bad as voting by those who have to be prodded to go to the polls.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
People trained in law, psychology, logic, statistics, etc.
My point precisely (and much more concisely than I made it). Logic, statistics, and critical reasoning in general often run counter to common sense, and unless one is Ramanujan, Gödel, or Will Hunting, one has to learn these things (there's a reason pre-law students take logic and the LSATs are basically logic tests). Studying actual laws and court procedures is secondary for lawyers (they're mostly learned after law school), but not the other subjects you mention- these are learned first, some even before law school. And the reason, unfortunately, that lawyers study much of the psychology they do is to understand how to manipulate juries. So well put.
 
Top