Jury of peers

[GcLLC]

As I was preparing for my (possible) citizenship test, I decided to brush up on the US constitution. At this point, I have a question on "jury of peers". How and when did that originate? As far as I can see, the sixth amendment is:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense"

It only talks about an "impartial jury". At what point did it become a "jury of peers"? (British law is far more clearer on this. Magna Carta proclaims that a freeman cannot be imprisoned unless by the judgement of his peers.

Could someone please clarify how the current jury system came about and what is the legal basis for this?

Thanks!

PS: I know this is not entirely relevant to immigration. Given the higher knowledge level of many members and the fact that many attorneys take part in the discussion, I thought I would ask this question here.

[JoeF]

Well, the "jury of peers" is a myth.

From a 1992 NYT article:

"The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are full of lofty assurances of justice. But contrary to the prevailing mythology, neither says anything about "a jury of one's peers.""

"Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court in 1990, "The Sixth Amendment requirement of a fair cross-section on the venire is a means of assuring not a representative jury (which the Constitution does not demand), but an impartial one (which it does).""

"Legal scholars say that while a jury of one's peers sounds laudable, it is completely unworkable in practice. How, for instance, could one ever come up with a jury of peers of the serial killer Jeffrey L. Dahmer? To accommodate all possible factors, not just race, but sex, class, religion and others, could be laborious indeed, like selecting a Supreme Court Justice. It could also be unconstitutional.

"The people who try the typical unemployed street criminal are not his peers, but neither were the people who tried William Kennedy Smith," said Gerald E. Lynch of Columbia Law School. Nor, he said, should they necessarily be. "There's some importance to the view that 12 people randomly drawn from the community are going to be fair," he said."

[pontevecchio]

Every Citizen here is supposed to have the same rights etc. and the members of any Jury are your peers irrespective of social background as all men are equal. Look up the 100 questions and you will have a lifetime as an USC to delve into the supreme law of the Land. Ironic/ Yes. Factual. Yes.

[GcLLC]

@JoeF: Thanks for the pointer. I did read the whole article.

The Magna Carta does make a mention of peers. However there is an implicit assumption that "peer" means someone equal in stature. (The Barons have their own "peers", for example).

In the American context, when (and how) did Jury come to mean a random set of people?

[JoeF]

In the American context, when (and how) did Jury come to mean a random set of people?

With the constitution...

The assumption is that the "random set of people" is a fair set of people.

The "peers" only come into play in a society of unequals, like the British society. Peers of lords would mean other lords.

The US is not supposed to have different classes of people. Everybody is equal, everybody is a "peer."

All men (and women) are equal, i.e., all are your "peers."

[Desi Dude]

"Jury of Peers" is one of the reason why American Justice system sucks. Because of this, people like OJ, Casey and a lot others got away with multiple murders.

"Jury of Peers" concept assumes that all jurors are fully logical and completely impartial. The system does not favor the victim but the criminal. You only need one juror to disagree and a murderer can go free.

[JoeF]

"Jury of Peers" is one of the reason why American Justice system sucks. Because of this, people like OJ, Casey and a lot others got away with multiple murders.

"Jury of Peers" concept assumes that all jurors are fully logical and completely impartial. The system does not favor the victim but the criminal. You only need one juror to disagree and a murderer can go free.

How do you know OJ is a murderer? Were you there? Were you an eye-witness???

Just because you believe he murdered somebody doesn't make it so. The jury had reasonable doubt, which is the mark in a criminal trial.

And do you know how many wrong convictions were prevented because of the jury system???

I suggest learning about the US justice system.

Oh, and the jury system is spelled out in the US Constitution. If you don't like it, nobody forces you to be here.

[cap-gap]

How do you know OJ is a murderer? Were you there? Were you an eye-witness???

Just because you believe he murdered somebody doesn't make it so. The jury had reasonable doubt, which is the mark in a criminal trial.

And do you know how many wrong convictions were prevented because of the jury system???

I suggest learning about the US justice system.

Oh, and the jury system is spelled out in the US Constitution. If you don't like it, nobody forces you to be here.

look up "innocence project" in Texas..i say it again "TEXAS"

about 30+ minority men convicted by their jury of peers and serving life sentence are freed after decades as the new DNA technology proves them they didnt commit the crimes..

nobody knows how many were wrongfully put to death by this "jury of peers"..

[pontevecchio]

The mind set of people in the Western Countries is different and ordinarily they cannot be swayed by political or physical threats. On the other hand , in the land of Bharat where there is an extreme level of reservations in the judicial system with merit given the boot along with rogue politicians who are in the fray, it is extremely naïve and simplistic to make statements as in post # 6. It is also in bad taste to taint a honest specific question with the sword of prejudice.

[Desi Dude]

How do you know OJ is a murderer? Were you there? Were you an eye-witness???

Just because you believe he murdered somebody doesn't make it so. The jury had reasonable doubt, which is the mark in a criminal trial.

And do you know how many wrong convictions were prevented because of the jury system???

I suggest learning about the US justice system.

Oh, and the jury system is spelled out in the US Constitution. If you don't like it, nobody forces you to be here.

Oh so now you are going to defend OJ. You might be the only one with his head in the sand.

Give me a case where the person was seemingly innocent, but still the jury decided to convict him?

I never said its not in the Constitution. "Jury" system was right in the old days when nobody trusted the government and when societies were small and everyone knew everyone in the town. It's impractical now.

[JoeF]

Oh so now you are going to defend OJ. You might be the only one with his head in the sand.

Huh???

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't defend anybody.

But you can't claim that OJ is a murderer, either. You don't know the facts.

You can have the belief that he is a murderer, but you do NOT know it.

LEARN things!

Now get lost, troll.

[cap-gap]

On the other hand , in the land of Bharat where there is an extreme level of reservations in the judicial system with merit given the boot along with rogue politicians who are in the fray,

It is also in bad taste to taint a honest specific question with the sword of prejudice.

yes the discussion has taken on a tangential path..but OP's question seem to be already answered...but is ur prejudiced statement above is not tainting the discussion?..

do u mean to say a govt official in the 'bharat' who is not benefited by the reservation system is NOT corrupt?

I was against the reservations too as being an upper caste until as an NSS volunteer I met a hill tribe..their group head asked me.."we were happy on our own hill hunting rabitts for 14 generations, your government says we do not belong to the hill but something called bharat, what do we do now?"..

how can u expect somebody from the hills to compete with you & me at the same level?

[Desi Dude]

The mind set of people in the Western Countries is different and ordinarily they cannot be swayed by political or physical threats. On the other hand , in the land of Bharat where there is an extreme level of reservations in the judicial system with merit given the boot along with rogue politicians who are in the fray, it is extremely naïve and simplistic to make statements as in post # 6. It is also in bad taste to taint a honest specific question with the sword of prejudice.

You are right except that jurors can be swayed by personal biases like race, ethnicity etc. And that is exactly what happened in OJ's case.

Unlike robots, humans are biased. The more the ordinary people judging, the more chances of disagreement and hence acquittal.

Jurors are only a one way street, they can only help the criminal not the other way round. That's why you will never see a case where nothing was proved against a person but still the jury convicted him.

[JoeF]

You are right except that jurors can be swayed by personal biases like race, ethnicity etc. And that is exactly what happened in OJ's case.

NO!

That is what YOUY BELIEVE happended. You have absolutely NO NO NO facts to back up your assertion.

You just want to believe something without facts.

You are just showing YOUR personal bias. In other words, you are doing what you claim the jury did.

[chakrakr]

Interesting discussion . Those who did not, I suggest watch the movie -- "12 Angry Men" (for those who know Hindi, the hindi adaption is Ek Ruka Hua Faisla). Excellent movie on Jury System

[GcLLC]

Look up the 100 questions and you will have a lifetime as an USC to delve into the supreme law of the Land. Ironic/ Yes. Factual. Yes.

Thanks :).

I do have a profound interest in constitutional law and comparative study of different constitutions. That often prompts me to ask questions that lead to flame wars......

[JoeF]

Thanks :).

I do have a profound interest in constitutional law and comparative study of different constitutions. That often prompts me to ask questions that lead to flame wars......

LOL. This wasn't even a flame war...

As for the law of the land, have you read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"? That, and the Federalist Papers are probably the most important works to understand the US political and legal system.

Volume One, Part II, Chapter 8 of Tocqueville discusses the jury system and compares it with the English system...

[Desi Dude]

Interesting discussion . Those who did not, I suggest watch the movie -- "12 Angry Men" (for those who know Hindi, the hindi adaption is Ek Ruka Hua Faisla). Excellent movie on Jury System

Exactly my point !!!! Those 2 movies show how juries are completely ruled by emotions. It also shows how difficult it is to convict a guilty person and how easy it is to for a guilty person to go scott free.

[JoeF]

Exactly my point !!!! Those 2 movies show how juries are completely ruled by emotions.

Movies are entertainment. They don't show reality.

Geez.

[rahul412]

Exactly my point !!!! Those 2 movies show how juries are completely ruled by emotions. It also shows how difficult it is to convict a guilty person and how easy it is to for a guilty person to go scott free.

dude, how can you compare 'reel' life with 'real' life??

[Desi Dude]

dude, how can you compare 'reel' life with 'real' life??

Oh so you saying, in real life every man and woman is logical and applies reason and judges everything correctly without using any emotions?

Legal judgements cannot be based on emotions.

[rahul412]

Oh so you saying, in real life every man and woman is logical and applies reason and judges everything correctly without using any emotions?

Legal judgements cannot be based on emotions.

No, Just forget about the movie and let's talk about the reality. We can't just compare real life incidents with a movie.

And no more arguments on this.

[JoeF]

Legal judgements cannot be based on emotions.

And they aren't.

Don't confuse what you see in movies with reality.