• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Professional Jurors?



SO what do you think? Should we ditch the current system of jury by peers and have professional jurors? Any additional info would help...also doing an essay on it. Let me hear your thoughts.
I think the defendent should be able to have a trial by whichever system he and his lawyers would prefer.

On the one hand, a jury by peers is often seen as less likely to discriminate against the defendent, than is a professional jury which probably has very little in common with the typically lower-class, uneducated defendent.

On the other hand, if the defendent truly is innocent, a professional jury will be much more likely to see through the bullshit of the prosecutor, more likely to ignore inadmissable evidence and things that have been stricken from the record, more likely to use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and more likely to follow the judge's instructions.
Top Bottom