Do you think the present jury system is outdated? Why? How might a professional jury system be more effective than the present system of peer jurors?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Some think the present jury system is not so much outdated as it is overmanipulated. The tailoring of juries during voir dire to achieve a desired racial, ethnic, or gender balance is disconcerting to many. Their simplistic view of the requirement for a trial before a randomly selected jury means just that—pick 12 people at random, put them in the jury box, hold the trial. Others, however, believe changes to the jury process are essential. An oft-heard recommendation is for reduction of the size requirement from 12 members to six. Some advocate elimination of the current random selection process as being too expensive and time-consuming. They suggest establishment of a “professional” jury system to improve efficiency. Proponents of the professional jury concept suggest such a system would provide greater dependability, would provide a jury pool with greater understanding of the law and legal processes, and would enhance equity by reducing the impact of emotionalism. Opponents say the notion of professional jurors is an idea whose time should never come. They suggest jurors might vote based not on the evidence presented but on the fact that the accused “fits the type” for a ruling of guilt or innocence, an opinion based on the jurors’ previous trial experiences.