Mark Twain had it right when he said the American jury system “puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury.”
Say what you want about defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges and defendants, the real problem with the American criminal justice machine is the dysfunctional jury system it so foolishly embraces.
Of all the problems afflicting the system—overworked and underpaid public defenders and mandatory minimum sentences to name just two—the biggest threat to justice is the way in which we select and seat jurors for civil and criminal trials.
Think about it.
Who are the fucking people who end up serving on juries? They’re the fucking idiots who either can’t get out of jury duty or, more dangerous, do everything they can to be seated because they don’t have anything better to do with their time. Or have some other fucking agenda that has nothing to do with justice.
I’m talking about the most serious cases. The highest-profile crimes. The ones that take months and months to adjudicate like the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson trials.
The fucking people they find for these juries are the permanently unemployed. Or they’re old and retired. Or they’re college students or other shiftless fucks living at home with mommy and daddy. Once in a blue moon, they’re people who are employed at companies that will actually pay them their regular salary for the duration of the trial.
You say some people are just good citizens who can afford to take time off from work (and without pay) to do their civic duty. I say people smart enough not to HAVE to work surely have better things to do with their time than spend 16 weeks (with Fridays off) in a courtroom or sequestered in a fucking hotel room for the “privilege” of participating in the process.
And do you really want someone sitting on your jury who is doing it for “curiosity” or the “hell of it” or to write a fucking book? Worse, do you want 12 men and women, good and true, forced to listen to the facts of your case? Talk about a group that’s dying to do whatever is easiest rather than what’s right.
We’re talking about someone’s life here. Yet we leave this shit to amateurs?
Then everyone throws their hands in the air wondering why those with money and influence walk when they shouldn’t and poor people who (occasionally) are innocent spend years and years in prison.
Here’s the solution:
Anyone who serves on a jury should know something about the law. It’s common fucking sense. You don’t take butchers and bakers or even candle-stick makers and turn them into professional jurors. You use law students.
That’s right. Instead of wasting thousands of hours on these fucking Law Reviews at all these universities, take these aspiring second- and third-year law students and turn them into professional jurors.
Make it a requirement for graduation that every law student complete a six-month tour as a professional juror in their community. Pay them something substantial. I don’t know. Maybe a stipend of like $2,000 a month. If you want to be a doctor, you have to do a residency. I know it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it would provide invaluable experience to every student serious about practicing law sometime down the road.
What practicing attorney wouldn’t give his left nut (or left ovary) to log 100 or 200 hours of real experience inside that jury room and five times as much time watching arguments unfold right in front of them? Talk about inside baseball. There’s no way this experience wouldn’t make them better attorneys.
With some notable exceptions, most of the people who manage to get into law school are bright people. They have common sense. They understand legal theory, to some degree, and recognize not only what’s at stake but why it’s so important that jurors take their responsibility seriously. By virtue of being interested and invested in the law, they’d be more circumspect and analytical than any fucking random group of 12 assholes off the street.
Most of these law students are going to be young. A good number of them are going to be naïve. Most, if not all, are going to bring their fair share of biases and presumptions to the courtroom. So what? Every jury brings these same predispositions. At least these people aren’t complete fucking morons.
The voir dire process would be the same. Both sides could eliminate jurors in the same fashion they do now. The whole process would be more efficient. Judges and attorneys would have to pick up their game. Deliberations wouldn’t so much be a battle of personalities as a battle of attrition between 12 people who have a decent legal foundation from which to base their arguments and decisions.
It’s not a perfect solution. And there’s no guarantee that juries comprised of law students (paid or not) are going to be anymore enthused about their six-month “sentence” than juries made up of social misfits and incompetents.
But if my ass was on the line, I know which group I’d want in that jury box.