Judged by your peers? Who is my peer?

B

BerettaCougar

New member
When someone is on trial, who is selected for jury duty?
Your peers? What is meant by "peers"?
Does this mean, people in your age group?
Financial status?
Religion?
Shares same hobbies?
People from the same community?

I have no idea...

Reason I ask is because, let's say I have to use my firearm for selfdefense, I would want to be judged by my peers meaning fellow gun carriers.

Any of you law aficionado's have any insight?
 
Reason I ask is because, let's say I have to use my firearm for selfdefense, I would want to be judged by my peers meaning fellow gun carriers.
Click to expand...
Which would create an obvious bias toward your side of the argument. Should child molestors be tried by a jury of pedophiles?
 
You're supposed to be judged by a random selection of 12 unbiased citizens. 12 is a number that is supposed to reduce the variation of age, experience and education to a minimum.

In a classless country like America, your peers are anyone who has the right to vote and is over 18. I'm sure there are places where you can have a select group on your jury, but I wouldn't want to live there.
 
Peers nothing.

A jury is made up of 12 peolpe too stupid to figure out a way to avoid jury duty. Wake up amurika !
 
As someone that has litigated in front of juries and has sat in the jury box himself, they tend to be smarter than many of those who deride them.
 
But carrying a gun isnt a crime...
Molesting a kid is!
Click to expand...
It is where I live. The point is that asking for a jury of people who already agree with your position is no more fair than being tried by a jury of staunch anti-gun advocates.
 
If you fire your gun in self-defense, what difference do the demographics of the jury pool make to you?
 
Amendment VI

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 ...

Where does it say jury of your peers? Oh, it doesn't. The notion of a "jury of your peers" is holdover from English law, where a nobleman who stood accused could elect to be judged by other nobles (his peers). We did away with the aristocracy in our Constitution, so now it is just a jury.
 
marks655 said:
A jury is made up of 12 peolpe too stupid to figure out a way to avoid jury duty. Wake up amurika !
Click to expand...
I find it amazing the number of people that bad mouth the system, yet when given the chance to actually do something about it, try anything they can to get out of doing something to help.

Like it or not, Jury Duty is a responsibility for each and every citizen. It's the last chance we have to effect change in a system, should change be needed.
invention_45 said:
You'll be tried by 6 or 12 of the biggest idiots that can be found.
Click to expand...
Regardless of your personal opinion on jurors, they are perhaps the most intense people you will find. It doesn't really matter who they are, what their backgrounds are, but when they are sitting at trial, those 6 or 12 people are the ones who will weigh the evidence and decide the fate of a fellow man. Jurors take what they do very seriously.

To those of you that demean the jury system: Do you have a better idea? Let's hear it, if you please.
 
I'm not demeaning the jury system itself.

I'm demeaning the selection of the jurors.

Randomly picked should mean randomly picked.

I don't want the state attorney to ask potential jurors if they are NRA members if I'm on trial for a self-defense "murder".

I don't want the state attorney to ask potential jurors if they ever smoked marijuana if I'm on trial for possession of pot.

I want the resolution of my (and everybody's) case to be made by a fair selection of people from society.

Perhaps those who are officers of the court could work toward fixing this situation.

Here's a little story. I know you can't wait.

I was called for jury duty. I've never been, so I actually wanted to be selected. So I was patient for half a day. Then a group of us was called to a courtroom.

We went inside after a few minutes. I think about 30 or 40 potential jurors sat down.

After a few minutes of shuffling papers and such, the attorney representing the state stood at a podium and introduced himself. He explained that he was going to go around the room and ask each person a few questions related to whether he or she could fairly deliberate in this case, of which he then gave a brief synopsis.

But before he started individually querying, he a general question of the entire room. The question was if anybody has a reason they think they may not be objective, please raise your hand now.

One man did, his son had been convicted of a similar offense. He was excused. Next, a woman raised her hand. She said "I was the victim of a rape last year, and the defendant won. I think all defense attorneys are scumbags".

Everybody was immediately herded out of the room and into the hallway.

I looked at the guy next to me and said "we're going home now".

Ten minutes later, the baliff emerged and informed us that we could all leave. One of us asked if he meant go back to the larger pool and wait to be called again. Nope. Go home.

So, hearing the phrase "all defense attorneys are scumbags" was cause to presume we could not give this guy a fair trial, nor any other person on that day.

Get it under control, and we "peers" will like it a lot better.
 
I think your 'peers' would be those members of the same community..be it town/city or county. Just like at work, your 'peers' are not neccesarily the direct group you work with, but rather those on the same level or with the same scope of responsibilities as yourself.

Besides, you live in FL, no? Don't you have the 'shoot first' law? I know that's oversimplifying it, but you know what I mean.
 
I'd be careful about that "you're living in FL" thing.

Just because the law says that if you shot in self defense and were in fear for your life you shall NOT be so much as arrested nor can you be held civilly responsible, doesn't mean all officers of the court are on the same page as the statutes.

There will probably be quite a few police officers, judges, victim advocates, and attorneys who, over the next year or so, failed to get the memo.
 
No doubt. It's just like my whole issue with the Texas bill HB823 and how there is apperently is a DA that is illegally arresting people. Call it being niaeve (sp), I admittedly place too much faith in our justice system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top