Should jurors have to have a minimum level of education, and if so, what should it be?
This is a highly debatable as well as political matter, and is included because it is often brought up during discussions about our jury system. At this point in America's timeline, one of the primary demographics for our citizens is race, and sadly, it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. If we insist that jurors have a minimum level of education, the demographic breakdown of people sitting in jury waiting rooms will not perfectly match (nor closely match) the demographic breakdown of American citizens. I base that statement on education statistics that are publicly and widely available, and that the government readily admits. The reasons why the statistics are what they are is an entirely different and debatable matter, and is outside the scope of this book.
For the purposes of this book, the concern is that we could never (and probably should never) implement such a system because it would be a form of indirect discrimination. If nothing else, it would be an instant “political nightmare,” and would lead to massive protests. It is my opinion, though, that a juror “in an ideal world” should have at least a high school diploma or GED. The point is completely moot, though, since school has become politicized and watered-down to the point where a student can earn a diploma from a fully accredited high school, and yet not have any more knowledge and academic abilities than a seven-year-old living in the 1950s. I have seen this with my own eyes as a school-aged student, as a college student, as a graduate student, and as a teacher and tutor of grades 3 to 12 and adults. It's called “social promotion” which in turn is called “politics.”
It makes no sense to me that (at least in theory) a juror may be sitting on a case while unable to read and completely understand a manifesto or ransom note that was left behind at the scene of a crime. S/he may also be unable to interpret a chart or diagram that is placed on exhibit. More importantly, the juror may be unable to write a note to judge if need be—let alone escalate and file a formal written complaint about an unresolved concern if need be. S/he may also be unable to do basic computations such as whether it is plausible that an alleged perpetrator ran or drove a given distance in a given amount of time. The juror may also not have a sufficient understanding of numeric place value which may be necessary in a civil case involving a very large monetary award. Most important of all is that the juror may not be able to understand the verbal instructions and legal definitions provided by the judge which, by law, are required to be phrased in a very specific “legalese,” and are not permitted to be explained in any manner or by examples. This topic is revisited to some extent in other sections of the book.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
For the purposes of this book, the concern is that we could never (and probably should never) implement such a system because it would be a form of indirect discrimination. If nothing else, it would be an instant “political nightmare,” and would lead to massive protests. It is my opinion, though, that a juror “in an ideal world” should have at least a high school diploma or GED. The point is completely moot, though, since school has become politicized and watered-down to the point where a student can earn a diploma from a fully accredited high school, and yet not have any more knowledge and academic abilities than a seven-year-old living in the 1950s. I have seen this with my own eyes as a school-aged student, as a college student, as a graduate student, and as a teacher and tutor of grades 3 to 12 and adults. It's called “social promotion” which in turn is called “politics.”
It makes no sense to me that (at least in theory) a juror may be sitting on a case while unable to read and completely understand a manifesto or ransom note that was left behind at the scene of a crime. S/he may also be unable to interpret a chart or diagram that is placed on exhibit. More importantly, the juror may be unable to write a note to judge if need be—let alone escalate and file a formal written complaint about an unresolved concern if need be. S/he may also be unable to do basic computations such as whether it is plausible that an alleged perpetrator ran or drove a given distance in a given amount of time. The juror may also not have a sufficient understanding of numeric place value which may be necessary in a civil case involving a very large monetary award. Most important of all is that the juror may not be able to understand the verbal instructions and legal definitions provided by the judge which, by law, are required to be phrased in a very specific “legalese,” and are not permitted to be explained in any manner or by examples. This topic is revisited to some extent in other sections of the book.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents