geoffrey Posted July 11, 2007 Report Posted July 11, 2007 I love juries. I love the S.C.C. I hope we never get rid of them. A jury or the SCC has no mandate to legislate. If someone broke a law, they should go to jail regardless of what they believe... unless of course, that law is unconstitutional, which as far as I know isn't true in this case. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
jbg Posted July 11, 2007 Report Posted July 11, 2007 Actually I don't think we should get rid of them, but we should get rid of the ability of lawyers to manipulate the jury pool. The system has been corrupted; they hire consultants to pick potential jurists or disqualify them. Maybe we should do away with peremptory challenge which allows lawyers to manipulate demographics and carve out an unrepresentative panel out of a representative pool. Juries should represent the people, not the parties.In the US, in Federal trials, the Judge, in practice, does most of the jury-picking, with limited peremptory challenge rights of lawyers. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
scribblet Posted July 11, 2007 Report Posted July 11, 2007 Guess I watch too much Law and Order - It seems that in Canada the law prohibits lawyers from extensively investigating potential jurers, all they get is the name, occupation, and address of prospective jurors before the jury selection hearing. Whereas in the U.S. they can actually research the backgrounds of potential jurors. But they do hire "experts" to help them select juries don't they? Maybe in Canada a jury is closer to the concept of a jury of your peers than in the U.S. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
M.Dancer Posted July 11, 2007 Report Posted July 11, 2007 Guess I watch too much Law and Order -It seems that in Canada the law prohibits lawyers from extensively investigating potential jurers, all they get is the name, occupation, and address of prospective jurors before the jury selection hearing. Whereas in the U.S. they can actually research the backgrounds of potential jurors. But they do hire "experts" to help them select juries don't they? Maybe in Canada a jury is closer to the concept of a jury of your peers than in the U.S. I've been reading some history of britain and intrestingly enough when the first juries appeared they actually questioned the witnesses...... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jbg Posted July 12, 2007 Report Posted July 12, 2007 It seems that in Canada the law prohibits lawyers from extensively investigating potential jurers, all they get is the name, occupation, and address of prospective jurors before the jury selection hearing. Whereas in the U.S. they can actually research the backgrounds of potential jurors. But they do hire "experts" to help them select juries don't they?In the US, and I'm referring to State rather than Federal juries, you get to question the jurors themselves. For the "investigation" you are relying upon their answers. The "jury consultants" accompany the attorneys to the jury room where this questioning occurs. They have "researched" the "qualifications" for ideal, and for objectionable, jurors. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
FTA Lawyer Posted July 12, 2007 Report Posted July 12, 2007 Guess I watch too much Law and Order -It seems that in Canada the law prohibits lawyers from extensively investigating potential jurers, all they get is the name, occupation, and address of prospective jurors before the jury selection hearing. Whereas in the U.S. they can actually research the backgrounds of potential jurors. But they do hire "experts" to help them select juries don't they? Maybe in Canada a jury is closer to the concept of a jury of your peers than in the U.S. You have it right in the above post. Picking a jury in Canada for the most part involves trying to formulate in your mind a general idea of who you want on the panel...but at the end of the day, you are making assumptions that may be accurate or totally wrong. For example, in a case where I was involved at the jury selection stage, the Crown immediately used one of its challenges to dismiss a juror who was wearing a Calgary Hitman hockey jacket...the accused was a SAIT Trojan hockey player. Who knows if that guy would have been more or less likely to identify with the accused...but his clothing selection that day is what got him out of jury duty. Lawyers in our system (where you can't interrogate a potential juror) who think they can really influence the outcome of the trial based on the selection of jurors in my opinion are just kidding themselves. FTA Quote
guyser Posted July 12, 2007 Report Posted July 12, 2007 FTA , curious what you think the outcome of Blacks trial will be? Yea, I know off topic, but curious anyhow. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.