Question

Should the jury system be changed from random choice of jurors from public records to one that relies on a group of trained jurors who are paid for their service? Why or why not? What is the intent of the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt"? How does this concept impact trial proceedings and the outcome of trials?

Answer 1

Solution -

I support this point of view of having trained jurors rather than choosing random jurors from the public due to the below reasons -

1. Choosing random jurors takes time

2. There is some lack of interest from random jurors which makes their verdict questionable

3. Trained jurors who are paid for the job will be empowered by their training to take more informed decisions

4. Acting as a juror is a responsibile job and hence it should be made professional.

The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" means that their is not any rational or linkable doubt for any malpractices or intentional shortcomings that may have been indulged into by the individual or a committee while arriving at the current state. This phrase is used as a legal standard statement to ensure that it is proved.

This concept of professIonal jurors will bring in a few below impacts on the proceedings and outcomes -

• The professional jurors being employed will help to establish faster allocation of jurors to trials and fill speed up the proceedings and we will have faster outcomes
• The professional jurors will ensure informed decision making and non-biased approach due to sway of emotions
• The professional jurors will tend to speed up processes by hurrying into verdicts as they would like to take certain aspects as granted while the random jurors will tend to be more careful as this will not be normal business for them
• The last probable impact would be that professional jurors would help to setup standard decision making practices for arriving at the verdict which will allow for lesser verdicts to be on the extreme side and most of the verdicts would be guided by similar judgement principles.