Why do juror preparations dumb things down?

Question

I went to jury duty today, and they explain things as if we're in the 2nd grade. My question is, if there are people out there that won't understand a normal presentation of the law and structure of the courts, should they really be the kind you want on the jury?

Answer 1

A lawyer doesn't want intelligence from the jury. He wants a verdict in his client's favor. That's the bottom line.

And if you have expertise, forget it. They'll think you'll try to use it in the deliberations. That would put you in the position of being an expert witness that the other side never got to cross-examine. Too much experience *can* bias people.

Answer 2

Other than people like you (who are the minority) the people who show up are often ignorant about how the law works.  Good for you for upgrading the average IQ of the jury pool!

Answer 3

In my opinion, Jury selection is, mainly, dumbed down by what I view as a collusion between the legal representatives and the court in the selection process. It is in the best interest of the lawyers and the court to have a flexible (read ignorant and docile) selection of jurors, which makes it simpler to achieve their goals in a given case. The Prosecutions goal, to be able to sway the jury with their thespianism, The Defence, to defend their client with their own thespianism, The Judge, to maintain "order" in the propagation of a flawed system.

I realize this is a relatively cynical opinion but allow me to site an example:

I was once in jury selection on a class action lawsuit for wrongful death by a group (cancer and asbestoses) of laborers and their lawyers (2) vs. a team of lawyers (6) for the major chemical/industrial corporations, Bechtel, Fairchild industries, etc.

There was, literally, 3 times the representation for the corporations than for the plaintiffs, an imbalance from the get go you might say.

When I was questioned about my thoughts about chemicals, corporate liability, etc. I responded levelly, that if the corporation is aware of ambient toxicity in its products, it is indeed responsible for the effects of that toxicity if they do not provide proper procedures and documentation when deploying said projects. I mean come on, how long have we known about asbestos toxicity?

The response from the judge was,essentially, "Thank you very much for your opinion, you are excused".

In short, the adding of thoughtful citizens to a jury implies the actual administration of thoughtful justice, as opposed to the parlor game that frequently passes for justice in our society. Being informed is not the same thing as being "biased". Not only is this a problem, but one of the most critical problems in the integrity of our society, it flies directly in the face of meaningful jurisprudence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurispruden...