Is using Juries really a good idea for deciding whether people are guilty?

[thedaveformula]

Picking 12 members of the general public, some of whom or all of whom may be total numbskulls - is that a good way of deciding whether someone is guilty? Can't we only choose people with IQs of a certain level or choose them on some other appropriate merit?

[jno]

what would be appropriate for a juror? PhD? Big scores in Scrabble? Flower show prizes for Best Marrow?

[squarebear]

When in court, remember you are trusting your fate to 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

[thedaveformula]

I understand your point jno, but how can we be sure that any of the 12 people deciding someone's fate has the cognitive ability to anaylse evidence properly?

[danchip]

if the jury is made up of intellectuals and your thick then your not being tried by your peers which is the whole point of using a jury!

[TTG]

I did jury service once and most people there moaned as they wanted to be somewhere else. Not many there were bothered about the fact their opinions could change someones life and possibly people connected with that person.

[jno]

when I did jury duty, everyone was very careful to study the evidence thoroughly and thought a great deal about what was the right thing to do.

[New Judge]

The idea of a trial by jury is that the prosecution has to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt in terms that even “total numbskulls” can understand. Those total numbskulls may themselves be on the receiving end of the law at some time in their lives and it is important that if society is to expect people to comply with the law, then the law must be easily understood.

If people can serve on a jury only if they have a certain level of intelligence is not too good an idea. To start with, to measure such intelligence is notoriously difficult. I know some people who can barely read and write, but they have intuition in bucketloads and can tell immediately when somebody is spinning them a yarn. Very often the work of a jury is as simple as that – who is spinning a yarn and who is not.

If jury members have to have a high level of intellect to be able to judge matters of fact to achieve a conviction then the law is not easy to understand. And it should be if it is to function properly.

[ummmm]

I thought they picked more than 12 and eliminated it down to 12.

[New Judge]

Fifteen are selected to go from the jury waiting room to the court. In the court twelve of the fifteen are chosen to form the jury and the remaining three return to the waiting room.

[dzug2]

I would think there is a danger in only choosing 'intelligent' jurors that they might have the prejudice that anyone who is 'thick' must be guilty

[suzy123]

I did jury service years ago - and it was a fascinating experience - on a murder case - we had to decide whether it was 1st degree or manslaughter - it took us quite a while more than a day I think to reach a verdict - I was resolute in my vote for manslaughter but i have to say there were some strong characters their who managed to break down a young mans opinion which made a difference to the outcome. I felt sory for him afterwards because he was in tears that he had not stood his ground.
Most of the jury saw things in black and white only - he killed - its murder. Jurys role was to listen carefully to the evidence before making a decision as to whether it was premeditated or not.

Has anyone seen the film 12 Angry Men - its a brilliant film about a jury considering a verdict - worth a watch.

[New Judge]

Even better is the Tony Hancock version:

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0595706/

However, we digress !!!

[suzy123]

new judge - Just read the review on tony hancocks version and that does pretty much sum up the attitude of some of the jury i was part of - we did have a good foreman though and he did bring them back to focus on the questions in hand.

[Invictas]

Just WHO would decide(and how) who was intelligent enough to serve on your type of jury?
It is unworkable and unmanageable.
Also just because someones IQ is high doesn't necessarily mean they are any better at assessing a trial outcome than someone with a lesser IQ.
I have met quite a few high IQ persons,but when it came to common sense they were at zero.

[hc4361]

Some cases are far too complex for non-experts to deal with. The Guinness trial is a good example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...d_2536000/2536035.stm
A lot of people, myself included, would have no comprehension of the complexities of share fraud.
The trial lasted 112 days - that's a lot of evidence and arguments for and against.

In this sort of trial the jury should be made up of experts.

[Davethedog]

Unfortunately I have done jury service 3 times, oh and Squarebear good luck with trying to get out of it, the only way I could see was to be self employed and tryst me I tried every thing.

In most of the cases everything was explainable and out of the 12 there were enough "clever" people to explain things to the others, however the first one I ever did was a post office fraud, it had over 500 seperate pieces of paper :-(

At the time I was an accounts manager so I understood but some struggled, I think specialist cases should have some sort of jury precedent.

[wolf63]

I dread ever being picked for jury duty. I am intelligent and have a reasonably high IQ. But I have a very short attention span, forget things and am hopeless at 'reading' people. I understand dog and cat body languages but have great problem with human body language. Worse than all that - my bladder needs emptying very regularly.

[joko]

perhaps it should be a paid job...and those people are trained in basic law, psychology, socialism...etc and other subjects that would be important to making a good decision...

i dont see how IQ tests would help...they are essentially just good at sums...