Should we completely do away with trials by juries of so-called “peers” (i.e., untrained and untested people “off the street”), and if so, how should cases be judged?
Let me be very clear that what I proposing in this section does not constitute a “good” solution for ensuring a fair American justice system. However, I believe that what I am suggesting is better than the system we currently have, and will be especially necessary as time progresses, and it becomes increasingly difficult to find qualified (and enough) jurors to serve on cases.
Before getting into details, it is worth noting that the concept of doing away with trials by jury is not so far-fetched. According to my informal research, 97% of cases never make it to a jury in the first place. The concept of “bench trials” handled exclusively by a judge as well as the concept of “plea bargaining” are becoming more and more commonplace. In essence, the US government “negotiates” with alleged criminals, and does so without any input and/or approval from “The People.” In particular, this negotiating is overseen and handled by just one single individual (i.e., a judge). We also have a system in which the US President can pardon and/or commute the sentence of a convicted felon (even if the President has an abysmal approval rating)—again, without any input and/or approval from “The People.”
The point to get out of all this is that to a great extent, the general public already has very little involvement in the justice system, and doesn't seem to be especially concerned about this. Most people just want to be called for jury duty as infrequently as possible, if at all, and are content to outsource the handling of judicial matters to the US Government, assuming they give any thought to the matter at all.
With all of this in mind, it is my opinion that we need to start moving in the direction of (and getting used to the idea of) having non-plea-bargained cases tried by a panel of judges. The average American simply no longer has the education, intelligence, sophistication, social skills, attention span, interest, incentive, and motivation to serve effectively in the capacity of juror. If nothing else, it is significant that jurors are not formally tested in advance to ensure that they are capable of understanding what they see and hear during a case. Also, after rendering a verdict, they are not asked to demonstrate that they fully understood everything that transpired. As time progresses, the percentage of people who are qualified (by a reasonable and traditional standard) to serve on a jury will diminish rapidly. The already low juror turnout rate will decrease with each passing year. This is directly related to the fact that the older generation of Americans (i.e., the ones that were born before America started “going down the tubes”) are getting older, and are steadily disappearing from jury pools, and are being replaced by a younger generation that doesn't care, and that doesn't have comparable education and abilities.
What I am suggesting (and what will indeed soon be necessary) will be as fair or as unfair as we as a society allow it to be. We (i.e., "The People") can take measures to ensure that judges recuse themselves from cases in which (for any reason) they feel as though they cannot be completely unbiased and impartial. We can randomly select a panel of judges from a large pool of potential judges, and we can even summon judges from neighboring counties for this purpose. Unlike trials by jury, each judge in the panel should be required to individually write a lengthy and detailed report which explains and substantiates his/her verdict. These reports should be available to the public, and should be easily accessible. The reports would provide something concrete that could be used by a prosecutor and/or defendant in the appeals process should such be necessary.
As an aside, my state of North Carolina was the last state in America to permit a defendant to wave his/her right to a jury trial, and instead request that his/her case by tried by a judge. I, for one, am very grateful for this. If I were ever falsely accused of committing a crime, I can think of no greater nightmare than to try to convince twelve typical Americans in the year 2015 that I was innocent, and know that I might end up in prison (or put to death) without even the slightest idea of how the jury came to its decision, and with no proof that the jurors were even listening to and/or understood the case.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
Before getting into details, it is worth noting that the concept of doing away with trials by jury is not so far-fetched. According to my informal research, 97% of cases never make it to a jury in the first place. The concept of “bench trials” handled exclusively by a judge as well as the concept of “plea bargaining” are becoming more and more commonplace. In essence, the US government “negotiates” with alleged criminals, and does so without any input and/or approval from “The People.” In particular, this negotiating is overseen and handled by just one single individual (i.e., a judge). We also have a system in which the US President can pardon and/or commute the sentence of a convicted felon (even if the President has an abysmal approval rating)—again, without any input and/or approval from “The People.”
The point to get out of all this is that to a great extent, the general public already has very little involvement in the justice system, and doesn't seem to be especially concerned about this. Most people just want to be called for jury duty as infrequently as possible, if at all, and are content to outsource the handling of judicial matters to the US Government, assuming they give any thought to the matter at all.
With all of this in mind, it is my opinion that we need to start moving in the direction of (and getting used to the idea of) having non-plea-bargained cases tried by a panel of judges. The average American simply no longer has the education, intelligence, sophistication, social skills, attention span, interest, incentive, and motivation to serve effectively in the capacity of juror. If nothing else, it is significant that jurors are not formally tested in advance to ensure that they are capable of understanding what they see and hear during a case. Also, after rendering a verdict, they are not asked to demonstrate that they fully understood everything that transpired. As time progresses, the percentage of people who are qualified (by a reasonable and traditional standard) to serve on a jury will diminish rapidly. The already low juror turnout rate will decrease with each passing year. This is directly related to the fact that the older generation of Americans (i.e., the ones that were born before America started “going down the tubes”) are getting older, and are steadily disappearing from jury pools, and are being replaced by a younger generation that doesn't care, and that doesn't have comparable education and abilities.
What I am suggesting (and what will indeed soon be necessary) will be as fair or as unfair as we as a society allow it to be. We (i.e., "The People") can take measures to ensure that judges recuse themselves from cases in which (for any reason) they feel as though they cannot be completely unbiased and impartial. We can randomly select a panel of judges from a large pool of potential judges, and we can even summon judges from neighboring counties for this purpose. Unlike trials by jury, each judge in the panel should be required to individually write a lengthy and detailed report which explains and substantiates his/her verdict. These reports should be available to the public, and should be easily accessible. The reports would provide something concrete that could be used by a prosecutor and/or defendant in the appeals process should such be necessary.
As an aside, my state of North Carolina was the last state in America to permit a defendant to wave his/her right to a jury trial, and instead request that his/her case by tried by a judge. I, for one, am very grateful for this. If I were ever falsely accused of committing a crime, I can think of no greater nightmare than to try to convince twelve typical Americans in the year 2015 that I was innocent, and know that I might end up in prison (or put to death) without even the slightest idea of how the jury came to its decision, and with no proof that the jurors were even listening to and/or understood the case.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents