A Jury of Your Peers

I'm no lawyer, but when you're accused of a crime, you're supposed to be "entitled" to be tried by a jury of your peers.

Now Webster's Dictionary (www.m-w.com) describes a "peer" as:

one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

But this is not the way the jury selection process works ... if you are a poor person, a young person and / or a member of a minority group, you have no right to restrict the jury to those from the same "societal" group ...

And in death penalty cases, matters become much, much worse ... I heard a case being discussed on the radio today (sorry, didn't get the details), that was currently in the jury selection phase ... the news reporter indicated that the only jurors who could be chosen were those who would be willing to convict someone knowing that the death penalty was a possbile sentence ...

Now doesn't that seem to sort of bias the jury a wee bit ??? I would suggest, and I generalize here, that those who support the death penalty are more likely to believe the police than the accused ... no proof, but i'll bet it's true ...

It may indeed be a problem if someone on the jury is totally opposed to the death penalty in a death penalty case ... but it seems that the current system denies you a "jury of your peers" before the trial even begins ...

Comments?

There is no mandate of demographic equality.

"Peer" may well mean a "fellow citizen" but one would hope for at least some degree of randomness in the selection process ...

Again, I'm no lawyer, but I believe an accused citizen has a right to challenge and have certain juror candidates blocked from becoming a juror ... the intent, it seems, is to provide an opportunity to both the prosecution and the defense to arrive at a "fair" jury ...

How can this be possible if only those who support the death penalty are allowed in the juror candidate pool?

If even one opponent of the death penalty is allowed on the jury, it 'nullifies' the state law which permits it, ab initio. BTW, I am opposed to capital punishment, so this is not an endorsement of the same. :hi:

. . . "jury selection wheel" which is a software program that selects names from motor/voter registration files. It's a very complicated process and he has been called to testify as an expert witness in appeals cases that challenged the fairness of the selection.

I believe the previous poster was correct in saying the jury doesn't have to be representative of community ethnic makeup, but the selection process does have to be demonstrably random.

i like the phrase "demonstrably random" ...

How can that standard be met in a death penalty case when only those who support (or at least would be willing to convict) the death penalty can participate on the jury ??

how can anyone credibly argue that limiting the jury pool to those who support the death penalty could lead to a fair trial ??

in the state in question, and the jury member votes against conviction - not based on the evidence presented, but on a predisposition against the possibility of the defendant's receiving the death penalty - then I don't believe that's right. So I believe the questioning of the jury regarding their position on the death penalty is appropriate.

your argument in support of the unworkability of allowing people on the jury (in a death penalty case) is valid ...

but so is my point ... for arguments sake, let's suppose that you had undeniable evidence that those who support the death penalty are far more likely to convict someone accused of a homicide than those selected from a random sample of potential jurors ...

your right to a fair trial goes right out the window !!!

i'm not sure I have a better solution but the current system seems totally unconstitutional, and totally unfair, to me ...

of course, my real solution is to do away with the barbaric death penalty ... that would solve this little dilemma ... wouldn't it ??

I served on a murder jury a few years ago. I'm not a death penalty supporter, but I did say that I could be fair and impartial with regard to the judgment, regardless of the penalty that may result.

I think statistically you'd have to show that, not only do people who support the death penalty tend to view defendants as guilty, but they also don't have any problem with lying about being fair and impartial when asked under oath to attest to that very thing.

I think you'd have a challenge in proving this statistically, but I can see where you might go with your gut on this one.