GJW
Flashlight Enthusiast
My coworker has been moaning about jury duty and the phrase "jury of your peers" came to mind.
Why not have arsonists jusge those accused of arson, murderers judge those accused of murder, and so on?
The idea came about completely tongue-in-cheek but the more I thought about it the more amused I became.
Non-convicts ***** about jury duty as it is and the convicts have nothing to do -- put 'em on a jury.
We already have expert witnesses -- why not expert jurors?
When the proscecution starts going on about decapitating someone with a strand of dental floss why not have someone on the jury that might actually have experience in the matter?
Good idea or not, my main question is whether anyone thinks that convicts could be impartial.
Assuming that the members of the jury don't know the accused (just as it's supposed to work now) do you think that a convict jury would be any more or less incliced to render a fair verdict?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif
Why not have arsonists jusge those accused of arson, murderers judge those accused of murder, and so on?
The idea came about completely tongue-in-cheek but the more I thought about it the more amused I became.
Non-convicts ***** about jury duty as it is and the convicts have nothing to do -- put 'em on a jury.
We already have expert witnesses -- why not expert jurors?
When the proscecution starts going on about decapitating someone with a strand of dental floss why not have someone on the jury that might actually have experience in the matter?
Good idea or not, my main question is whether anyone thinks that convicts could be impartial.
Assuming that the members of the jury don't know the accused (just as it's supposed to work now) do you think that a convict jury would be any more or less incliced to render a fair verdict?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif
