Should People With Mental Disorders Be Excluded from Juries?

[Nous]

The first problem I see is we would need to create a legal yes/no decision on who has a mental disorder. Many people have undiagnosed and borderline disorders and psychiatry is no exact science.

Yes, psychiatry isn't an "exact science" or a science at all. For purposes of exclusion from from the jury pool, the only way to determine whether someone has ever been diagnosed with or treated for a mental disorder is to ask the question (under penalty of perjury).

I favor eliminating juries drawn randomly from the community and we go with professional trained jurists. I can see where this system is not perfect either, but I think it would be better.

Agree 100%. Many in the legal profession also agree.

 

[Nous]

My answer in general is no. Too many so-called normal people are incapable of making rational judgements.

The fact that "many so-called normal people are incapable of making rational judgments" does not lead to the conclusion that those for whom there is an increased likelihood of impairment should not be excluded. Correct?

 

[YmirGF]

Which mental disorders do you say should not be the basis of exclusion, and why? The ones I noted in the OP include symptoms that implicate impairment in the ability to make rational judgments in some way.

By what method do you propose measuring "severity" as it relates to impairment in the ability to make rational judgments?

The HAM-D is the most commonly used instrument for measuring "severity" of Major Depressive Disorders, and it doesn't ask a single question regarding the "diminished attention" criterion of MDD. It (and the disorder's diagnostic criteria) look like to me something from junior high school.

Even this armchair psychologist has no idea although if someone is clearly presenting in a psychotic manner they could be suffering from some serious mental disability that would require trained personnel to properly diagnose -- but anyone present would realize something was amiss. I don't know. When I showed up for jury duty, I was not asked if I had suffered from any mental illness at any time. I got picked too. (That was a heap of fun, btw. Not!)

What about simply asking everyone who shows up for jury duty if they had suffered from any mental illness in the past. If they say yes, then a note from their doctor would be required before their selection could proceed. Better yet, include the stipulation in the notice to show up for jury duty selection, "Take the enclosed form to your current state recognized medical practitioner to be completed on your behalf, explaining your fitness for court duty."

 

[Nous]

I think it depends on the type and degree of mental disorder.

Which "type and degree of mental disorder" do you say should be the basis of exclusion from jury pools? Again, the mental disorders I noted in the OP include symptom criteria that indicate an increased likelihood of impairment in the ability to make rational judgments (or impairment in cognition or attention, etc.).

 

[Nous]

Like all others it depends on the mental condition

Which mental disorders do you say should be the basis for exclusion from jury pools? Again, the mental disorders I noted in the OP include symptom criteria that indicate an increased likelihood of impairment in the ability to make rational judgments (or impairment in cognition or attention, etc.).

also whether or not the person is on medication to mitigate any psychological distress.

So it's better to have drugged people with mental disorders on juries than to exclude them? Did you really mean to say that?

 

[Nous]

I say that some experimentation is needed.
Simulate trials, & examine people's decisions & reasoning.

Are you saying that each person in a jury pool should be tested in a "simulated trial"? If not, what are you proposing? By what method do you propose to test a person's ability to make rational judgments?

 

[Nous]

I'm not too familiar with current jury duty selection procedures. What are the policies here? Do they vary state by state, or district to district? Could they legally discriminate in jury duty selection based on private information that is federally protected (aka, health information)?

The information a person provides on the jury questionnaire is not disclosed beyond the officers of the court.

Other than that, are your questions answered by #19?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you saying that each person in a jury pool should be tested in a "simulated trial"? If not, what are you proposing?

I'm suggesting research just to understand what's going on.
No action should be taken until a problem is identified, & a
reasonable solution designed.

By what method do you propose to test a person's ability to make rational judgments?

I don't propose a method.
Since I'm not in the field of designing such tests,
I'll leave it to those who are.

 

[Nous]

If it gets me out of jury duty, sure.

You don't want to be on a jury? Have you had a bad experience on a jury?

 

[Nous]

My issues are regarding implementation of systems to vet those with the cited conditions. I am not sure if those are the type of objections you are interested in. Let me know if you are.

In a situation such as determining exclusion from or inclusion in a jury pool, I don't know how to "vet" a person other than by asking the question (under penalty of perjury) as to whether s/he has ever been diagnosed with or treated for a mental disorder.

 

[Nous]

Even this armchair psychologist has no idea although if someone is clearly presenting in a psychotic manner they could be suffering from some serious mental disability that would require trained personnel to properly diagnose -- but anyone present would realize something was amiss. I don't know. When I showed up for jury duty, I was not asked if I had suffered from any mental illness at any time. I got picked too. (That was a heap of fun, btw. Not!)

What about simply asking everyone who shows up for jury duty if they had suffered from any mental illness in the past. If they say yes, then a note from their doctor would be required before their selection could proceed. Better yet, include the stipulation in the notice to show up for jury duty selection, "Take the enclosed form to your current state recognized medical practitioner to be completed on your behalf, explaining your fitness for court duty."

What do you assume a doctor has determined or will determine about a person's ability to make rational judgments? By what method do you proposed doctors should make such a determination (especially about a person the doctor has never seen before, or who has merely had a quickie office visit in the past)?

 

[Orbit]

The diagnostic criteria for a variety of mental disorders include symptoms that involve impairment in the ability to make rational judgments. The most obvious of these would seem to be the delusions that are the most common symptom on which psychotic disorders are diagnosed. In DSM-IV, “delusion” is defined as: “A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.”

Major depressive disorders and various anxiety disorders include symptoms indicating impairments in the ability to concentrate. Personality disorders entail behaviors that “deviate markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture,” as manifested first and foremost in “cognition” or “the ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people and events”.

At least theoretically, impairment in the ability to reason correctly is not a desirable trait in a jury member. Of course, these days, depending on the case, lawyers are often more interested in choosing jury members who are susceptible to suggestion, are easily distracted and manipulated by irrelevancies, or who adhere to a particular political ideology.

Nevertheless, should having a mental disorder be recognized as a valid for-cause reason for excluding a person from a jury? If not, why not?

All of these things are mitigated with medication. It would be like telling a diabetic on insulin that they couldn't be on a jury because their blood sugar might get low, hampering concentration.

 

[Nous]

I'm suggesting research just to understand what's going on.
No action should be taken until a problem is identified, & a
reasonable solution designed.

Observing that for a certain group of people there is an increased likelihood of impairment in the ability to make rational judgments is identification of a problem, and exclusion of such people from jury pools is a solution, is it not?

 

[Nous]

All of these things are mitigated with medication.

Where did you get that idea? Cite those studies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Observing that for a certain group of people there is an increased likelihood of impairment in the ability to make rational judgments is identification of a problem, and exclusion of such people from jury pools is a solution, is it not?

Sure.
I just can't say who they are, & what the procedure would be.

 

[Jainarayan]

Which "type and degree of mental disorder" do you say

I said "I think". It means it's an opinion, or a guess on my part, not a fact.

 

[Shad]

In a situation such as determining exclusion from or inclusion in a jury pool, I don't know how to "vet" a person other than by asking the question (under penalty of perjury) as to whether s/he has ever been diagnosed with or treated for a mental disorder.

Nations with national healthcare systems have regulations and laws which enable various branches of government to access one's medical records. Some regulations only require a signature.

Would you support granting authority to the courts to access or petition potential jury member's medical records?

*You can include the overall healthcare system if you feel it is necessary for access authority to function.

 

[YmirGF]

What do you assume a doctor has determined or will determine about a person's ability to make rational judgments? By what method do you proposed doctors should make such a determination (especially about a person the doctor has never seen before, or who has merely had a quickie office visit in the past)?

I don't know, but here in glorious British Columbia, there is a province-wide medical database, so even a doctor who did not know you can review existing case notes, do a simple Q&A to determine if one was up to the task, needed further analysis or was incapable. Theoretically, this could work.

The problem with doing something like this is if you are going to this for people with existing (even if under treatment) mental conditions, then why not have another test to filter out people with low intelligence? Have an anti "deplorables" clause to filter out people who voted for Trump?

 

[Nous]

Would you support granting authority to the courts to access or petition potential jury member's medical records?

I have no problem with that. It would be time consuming and seems like a lot of trouble to go to for information that is presumably usually adequately acquired simply by asking the questions such as asked by the federal questionnaire noted above. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that people are generally honest on those questionnaires.

 

[Orbit]

Where did you get that idea? Cite those studies.

Seriously? You want studies that show that mental illnesses are treatable? Be my guest, give it a Google. Do you also want proof diabetes is treatable? You request is absurd.