We already have professional
judges. Juries are supposed to be made up
of Joe Citizen so the
verdict is balanced.
Find out more about this topic on the search engines of your choice.
Search these titles:
• “Professional Juries: Veritas or Vocation?”
• “Should we have professional juries?”
• “Time and place for professional jurors”
• “What are the pros and cons of ‘professional jurors?’ ”
We have seen so many cases
where verdicts were
more based on emotion rather than fact.
Verdict brought to
you by Monsanto. No
juries a good idea?
Professional juries would be able
to follow the trial,
know the meaning
of legalese and [be]
more neutral to a finding of guilt or innocence based on
the law and not their feelings.
Many trials have probably ended
[with people voting]
with the majority just
so they could get
back to work. You
aren’t getting a jury of your peers
as it is. You are getting a jury of
people that can afford jury duty.
They would be more likely to
push personal political agendas. Nope, I’ll
take my chances with
the regular guy or gal.
SOME SAY THAT professional juries, knowledgeable in law,
would be more likely than lay juries to render fair decisions,
save money, speed the trial system and avoid hardships for
citizens. Critics argue that professional juries will essentially
be responsible to the government that pays them and will
not bring the wide perspective to decisions that lay juries
What do you think?